Interpretation of bible scripture by different denominations

[The Liturgist]

I think the atmosphere created is more ornate, but the prayers of either are amazing and equally efficacious.

As I said, there are some things about the New Mass I really like. The prayers I mentioned as being problematic are not the essential prayers, but are rather collects for specific feasts, as described in the article I linked, which I hope you might read. It is on New Liturgical Movement, which is a blog run by Roman Catholics led by Gregory DiPippo, Peter Kwaniewsky and Dom Alcuin Reid , who are dedicated to beautiful liturgics, the preservation of traditional forms of the liturgy, and the liturgical arts. They are part of a larger community that also includes Fr. Zuhlsdorf whose blog, wdtprs , is much loved, and Fr. Hunwicke in the UK. Obviously, since no one on the NLM is a member of the SSPX or other schismatic groups, they concur that the prayers are equally efficacious.

For my part I would like to see the Ordinary Form reformed to address the issues Peter Kwaniewsky and others have raised with some of the new collects, and also Traditiones Custodes reversed. Specifically, I think the new mass should be revised to have a one year lectionary that would still have an Old Testament lesson, and it could be based on the Mozarabic, Gallican and Ambrosian Rite lectionaries, which historically always had three lessons (the Roman mass and the Byzantine mass had two largely because there was an expectation people would attend Vespers on Saturday to hear the Old Testament prophecy, and then hear how it is fulfilled on Sunday, and indeed this still happens among Byzantine Rite Catholics such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, and among Eastern Orthodox, but unfortunately very few Catholic parishes offer any services from the Liturgy of the Hours. If I do join the Catholic church I think it would be with a vocation to make the Liturgy of the Hours a thing people attend daily, that is as commonly celebrated as the mass itself, and is regarded as inseparable from it. The Council of Trent tried to do this, St. Pius X tried to do this, but there is an extreme inertia behind what Fr. Robert Taft, SJ called “the devotionalization of the hours.”

In the Byzantine Rite it is the case, in both Catholic and Orthodox parishes, that the Hours are inseparable from the liturgy. In Church Slavonic parishes like those of the OCA, ROCOR or the Ukrainian and Belarusian Greek Catholics, vespers and matins happen the night before, usually, and the Divine Liturgy is preceded by the Third and Sixth Hours, whereas elsewhere, like in Melkite Catholic or Greek Orthodox parishes, Matins immediately precedes the Divine Liturgy.

By the way, when it comes to doing a beautiful job with both the Ordinary Form and the Traditional Latin Mass, the parish of St. John Cantius in Chicago is amazing, as is the Oxford Oratory in the UK - they both stream on YouTube.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Bible never tells us to interpret …it states … rightly divide the Word of Truth… and that is my quest.

There are specific keys and principles to follow that allow the Bible to interpret itself.

The word > rightly divide in the Greek is orthotomeō meaning …to cut straight, cut rightly or correctly. The intrinsic nuance meaning, there is one way to rightly cut it…. all others are wrong..... Everybody divides the Word ...the question is ….it is rightly divided.

We have various religions and denominations because of varying interpretations …so, who do you trust. Some may say …. “well, I believe such and such” but, what if such and such is wrong ….your belief doesn’t make it right, and your belief is not going to override what is truth. … So who or what do you trust.


You trust God. Some of the basics are: Read what is written not what you believe. Does it fit with the entirety of the Word? Does it fit with the context both immediate and remoter. To whom is it addressing Jews? Gentiles? Or church of God? ….those are just the absolute basics …I have an entire page of keys and principles that I follow for allowing the Bible to interpret itself …happy to post it if you want it.

I would sincerely like to see your keys and principles, because I do genuinely believe in the use of such when reading Scripture, particularly since even in the traditional churches, the amount that has been authoritatively interpreted and commented upon in great detail is quite small. In almost every church it is limited to those passages which are doctrinally important, like John 1:1-18.

 

[The Liturgist]

Hi,

So it seems when listening to sermons from the different denominations that regarding some bible verses they have different interpretation of bible scripture.
It is sometimes hard to determine who has the right interpretation, so what we can do personally for ourselves is, study it ourselves and than determine for ourselves which denomination has the right interpretation, but thing is, after some years one might change of opinion and consider the other denomination to have the right interpretation. Thanks that we have internet so we can do some study ourselves first, but still it can be confusing sometimes, thats why we have different denominations don't we, each thinking they have the right interpretation. Some controversial subjects are for example Cessationism versus continuationism, speaking in tongues, gift of the Spirit, calvinism vs arminianism, Apostolic-Prophetic movement and sometimes disagreement regarding some bible verses like for example:

Mark 11:24 ESV Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Prosperity gospel and healing gospel like to use this bible verse, the claim it method or something.

Br.

When it comes to several of the issues you mention, for example, Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism, I don’t believe it can be proven either way.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi,

So it seems when listening to sermons from the different denominations that regarding some bible verses they have different interpretation of bible scripture.
It is sometimes hard to determine who has the right interpretation, so what we can do personally for ourselves is, study it ourselves and than determine for ourselves which denomination has the right interpretation, but thing is, after some years one might change of opinion and consider the other denomination to have the right interpretation. Thanks that we have internet so we can do some study ourselves first, but still it can be confusing sometimes, thats why we have different denominations don't we, each thinking they have the right interpretation. Some controversial subjects are for example Cessationism versus continuationism, speaking in tongues, gift of the Spirit, calvinism vs arminianism, Apostolic-Prophetic movement and sometimes disagreement regarding some bible verses like for example:

Mark 11:24 ESV Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Prosperity gospel and healing gospel like to use this bible verse, the claim it method or something.

Br.

Hello Curiousmind, the good news about what you wrote above is this, while all of the topics are, as you said, controversial, NONE of them are TRULY important and necessary (in regard to one's salvation, that is).

I used to be Presbyterian (USA), but I left the denomination back in the 90's (due to the increasing liberal movement within the denomination) and am now part of the Evangelical Free Church of America, a denomination that maintains a neutral or agnostic position on the controversial doctrines that you just named, and a couple of others too (we do this as long as we believe that both sides of a controversial doctrine/theology can be substantially supported Biblically .. of course, that's why they are and why they will remain, controversial, yes?).

The SBC has followed suit (just FYI), as I believe that they recognized the wisdom in doing so, just like we did. Perhaps the biggest practical change/advantage that I have noticed since we implemented this policy is the loving, Christlike discussions that have come from it, even though these topics are no less controversial (or important) to our pastors and congregants who continue to hold them in high esteem personally.

What we end up with are discussions that hinge on the Bible, rather than on something like a systematic theology, and that is a very good thing

I find it amazing, even with all of the various denominations that are out there right now, that I am still able to agree with them all on matters that are truly important, and able to (at least) agree to disagree on matters that are not. It is also amazing to me that each denomination has, on their own/apart from any sense of a central, governing body that rules over them all (save the Godhead itself), come to the same conclusions about the issues/doctrines that are central and vital to the Christian faith.

The only rub in this has been the recent, rapid growth of liberal/progressive thought and practice within some of our denominations (like my former denomination), as these churches/denominations no longer hold the important/vital parts of the faith in common with us (of course, the Catholic Church is hardly immune from this problem as we, sadly, see in the news almost every day now).

Finally, I (perhaps alone?) see great value in the various (conservative Christian) denominations and the different ancient churches, as well, and in things like the Reformation (1517 AD) and the Great Schism (1054 AD), as they all have kept any one church or denomination from sealing God up too tightly in a box of their own making (though they, nevertheless, continue to try to do so anyway ).

God bless you!!

--David

 

[HTacianas]

Hi,

So it seems when listening to sermons from the different denominations that regarding some bible verses they have different interpretation of bible scripture.
It is sometimes hard to determine who has the right interpretation, so what we can do personally for ourselves is, study it ourselves and than determine for ourselves which denomination has the right interpretation, but thing is, after some years one might change of opinion and consider the other denomination to have the right interpretation. Thanks that we have internet so we can do some study ourselves first, but still it can be confusing sometimes, thats why we have different denominations don't we, each thinking they have the right interpretation. Some controversial subjects are for example Cessationism versus continuationism, speaking in tongues, gift of the Spirit, calvinism vs arminianism, Apostolic-Prophetic movement and sometimes disagreement regarding some bible verses like for example:

Mark 11:24 ESV Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Prosperity gospel and healing gospel like to use this bible verse, the claim it method or something.

Br.

I prefer the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church does not interpret the bible. The Orthodox Church wrote the bible and has always known what it means. "Interpretations" are innovations of Protestantism that change on a near daily basis. Someone says "hey look! I found something in the bible no one has ever seen". Trust me. They haven't. The meaning of the bible has been known since it was written. No new interpretation is needed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hi,

So it seems when listening to sermons from the different denominations that regarding some bible verses they have different interpretation of bible scripture.
It is sometimes hard to determine who has the right interpretation, so what we can do personally for ourselves is, study it ourselves and than determine for ourselves which denomination has the right interpretation, but thing is, after some years one might change of opinion and consider the other denomination to have the right interpretation. Thanks that we have internet so we can do some study ourselves first, but still it can be confusing sometimes, thats why we have different denominations don't we, each thinking they have the right interpretation. Some controversial subjects are for example Cessationism versus continuationism, speaking in tongues, gift of the Spirit, calvinism vs arminianism, Apostolic-Prophetic movement and sometimes disagreement regarding some bible verses like for example:

Mark 11:24 ESV Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Prosperity gospel and healing gospel like to use this bible verse, the claim it method or something.

Br.

Attempting to read and understand a text (any text, whether in Shakespeare or the Bible) is simply what people do and the message being sent isn't always the one that is received because each text is written in a particular place and time and culture and language. Hence, different interpretations are always a possibility because simply reading a text, especially an ancient, foreign text, doesn't necessarily afford every person reading it to understand (i.e. interpret) that text in a perfectly identical way. This just an outcome of the fact that the Bible isn't a comprehensive book and wasn't written in a contextless vacuum.

Being that this is the case is why the fields of Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis and Historiography are needed, among several others. The Bible can't REALLY be simply slapped open, read and fully and clearly and completely understood by anyone.

 

[The Liturgist]

Attempting to read and understand a text (any text, whether in Shakespeare or the Bible) is simply what people do and the message being sent isn't always the one that is received because each text is written in a particular place and time and culture and language. Hence, different interpretation are always a possibility because simply reading a text, especially an ancient, foreign, one doesn't necessarily afford every person reading it to understand (i.e. interpret) that text in a perfectly identical way. This just an outcome of the fact that the Bible isn't a comprehensive book and wasn't written in a contextualess vacuum.

Being that this is the case is why the fields of Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis and Historiography are needed, among several others. The Bible can't REALLY be simply slapped open, read and fully and clearly be understood by anyone.

Indeed - the inaccuracy of the doctrine of Perspicuity of Scripture can be demonstrated by having two people read the Bible end to end and then provide an interpretation of the doctrines combined therein. And this is exactly what did happen in the case of most of the Restorationist churches, and also some earlier Protestant churches. People like John Nelson Darby, George Fox and William Miller were not interested in Patristic writings or Church History.

 

[fhansen]

Rather than interpreting the bible it is probably best to simply accept that the bible means the same thing it has always meant. But unhappy with that, we have countless thousands coming along claiming that it means some other thing and they have the only truth. That leaves us with countless thousands of splits, schisms, and heresies that we have to shake a magic eight ball and hope for the best.

Yes. And the answer IMO is to either acknowledge that we really can't know the Christian faith adequately....or, we're guided by the historic understanding of the ancient churches: EO, RCC, etc which also happen to be pretty well reflected in the writings of the ECFs.

 

[public hermit]

we're guided by the historic understanding of the ancient churches: EO, RCC, etc which also happen to be pretty well reflected in the writings of the ECFs

Are they well reflected in the ECFs? If the argument is the scriptures should be taken at face value, then nothing could be further from how those early interpreters, at least of the Alexandrian persuasion, approached the scriptures. Take the way Maximus the Confessor deals with interpretation in the Second Century On Theology #75:

For an understanding of Scriptures that does not go beyond the literal meaning, and a view of the sensible world that relies exclusively on sense perception, are indeed scales, blinding the soul's visionary faculty and preventing access to the pure Logos.

He's not just talking about the OT. He means all of it. #73

Hence a person who seeks God with true devotion should not be dominated by the literal text, lest he unwittingly receives not God but things appertaining to God; that is, lest he feel a dangerous affection for the words of scripture instead of for the Logos.

 

[fhansen]

Are they well reflected in the ECFs? If the argument is the scriptures should be taken at face value, then nothing could be further from how those early interpreters, at least of the Alexandrian persuasion, approached the scriptures. Take the way Maximus the Confessor deals with interpretation in the Second Century On Theology #75:

For an understanding of Scriptures that does not go beyond the literal meaning, and a view of the sensible world that relies exclusively on sense perception, are indeed scales, blinding the soul's visionary faculty and preventing access to the pure Logos.

He's not just talking about the OT. He means all of it. #73

Hence a person who seeks God with true devotion should not be dominated by the literal text, lest he unwittingly receives not God but things appertaining to God; that is, lest he feel a dangerous affection for the words of scripture instead of for the Logos.

The argument is that Scripture should not be taken alone, for the purpose of understanding the faith.

 

[public hermit]

The argument is that Scripture should not be taken alone, for the purpose of understanding the faith.

The argument I saw was 1) The Orthodox Church wrote the Bible, and 2) The Orthodox don't interpret but take it at face value, the assumption being there is one salient meaning. Not to be mean, but that's patent nonsense since both orthodoxy and Orthodoxy spring directly from the Alexandrian influence that took nothing as if it had a plain meaning. And if it had a plain meaning, it wasn't comparable to the hidden, spiritual meaning.

 

[fhansen]

The argument I saw was 1) The Orthodox Church wrote the Bible, and 2) The Orthodox don't interpret but take it at face value, the assumption being there is one salient meaning. Not to be mean, but that's patent nonsense since both orthodoxy and Orthodoxy spring directly from the Alexandrian influence that took nothing as if it had a plain meaning. And if it had a plain meaning, it wasn't comparable to the hidden, spiritual meaning.

IDK. I didn't say anything about the orthodox Church writing the bible. But the ancient searches all received both written and unwritten teachings/traditions. None of them go by Scripture alone.

 

[public hermit]

IDK. I didn't say anything about the orthodox Church writing the bible. But the ancient searches all received both written and unwritten teachings/traditions. None of them go by Scripture alone.

I agree, that Protestant assumption is mistaken. There was a rule of faith ( the canon of the "canon") going back pre-Irenaeus (since he mentions it) that tracked along with the establishment of the canon (scriptures).

 

[The Liturgist]

The argument I saw was 1) The Orthodox Church wrote the Bible, and 2) The Orthodox don't interpret but take it at face value, the assumption being there is one salient meaning. Not to be mean, but that's patent nonsense since both orthodoxy and Orthodoxy spring directly from the Alexandrian influence that took nothing as if it had a plain meaning. And if it had a plain meaning, it wasn't comparable to the hidden, spiritual meaning.

Actually I would say most of the Fathers used both Alexandrian and Antiochene exegetical technique to varying degrees depending on the book, and the Father, in question, with people who leaned too heavily towards one method, specifically Origen in the case of Alexandria and Theodore of Mopsuestia in the case of Antioch, later becoming widely, if controversially, regarded as heretics. Also, regarding the Alexandrian typological-prophetic meaning, not every father regarded this meaning as hidden, for to many it was quite obvious, provided one’s eyes had been opened like those of the Apostles at the end of Luke, which would occur through catechesis and baptism. And during the catechtical process, the ancient church did teach catechumens the essential doctrines, and the homilies of St. John Chrysostom and others were highly expositional.

Thus I agree enthusiastically with what St. Maximus the Confessor wrote, and I do reject perspecuity of scripture as an Orthodox concept, however, I think what St. Maximus was referring to was neither the Alexandrian nor Antiochene exegesis but rather the prevailing Patristic interpretation as accepted by the Early Church.

Regarding this, since the repose of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, who among the Fathers particularly loved St. Maximos the Confessor, the most knowledgeable person to consult would probably be his successor at Oxford, the former dean of St. Vladimir’s, Fr. John Behr.

 

[The Liturgist]

I agree, that Protestant assumption is mistaken. There was a rule of faith ( the canon of the "canon") going back pre-Irenaeus (since he mentions it) that tracked along with the establishment of the canon (scriptures).

Indeed, and he also documented it to some extent along with the Heresies, a pattern continued by St. Epiphanios the bishop of Salamis in his Panarion (first-aid kit is the best translation, literally it means “medicine chest” but since it likens each heresy to a particular undesirable critter, usually a venomous or poisonous one, first-aid kit really seems appropriate, or perhaps, I forget what they are called, but some ranger stations in parks contain kits with antidotes for the bites of various venomous critters that live nearby, and likewise lifeguards on the beach might have ammonia and other treatments on hand for jellyfish stings and other such incidents).

 

[janemanu]

Hi,

So it seems when listening to sermons from the different denominations that regarding some bible verses they have different interpretation of bible scripture.
It is sometimes hard to determine who has the right interpretation, so what we can do personally for ourselves is, study it ourselves and than determine for ourselves which denomination has the right interpretation, but thing is, after some years one might change of opinion and consider the other denomination to have the right interpretation. Thanks that we have internet so we can do some study ourselves first, but still it can be confusing sometimes, thats why we have different denominations don't we, each thinking they have the right interpretation. Some controversial subjects are for example Cessationism versus continuationism, speaking in tongues, gift of the Spirit, calvinism vs arminianism, Apostolic-Prophetic movement and sometimes disagreement regarding some bible verses like for example:

Mark 11:24 ESV Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Prosperity gospel and healing gospel like to use this bible verse, the claim it method or something.

Br.

I'm glad I sign up.. this is something its confuse me too... but lately it's makes me think one verse can be one meaning but the Lord message is different to everyone... the verse you gave me mark 11 : 24 my message it the promise for me (it will be yours) why? I understand praying process.. other is healing.. but the verse has the same meaning ask (pray).. believe... it's will be yours.
I hope you and other can drop me few words and verse too. Clarify me this too.. would love some bible verse too. ✌ ✌

 

[DragonFox91]

One way to tell if a church is teaching right is if they don’t teach the full context of a verse. They find verses they like & ignore the surrounding verses. They come in with a goal, scour the Bible for a verse that confirms their goal, & just teach that verse. This is the tried & true graveyard of any church. Many churches do this. I’ve seen it lead churches to ruin.

Churches that don’t teach right over-emphasize certain topics & don’t say a peep about other topics. They may have a lot to say about God’s love, but don’t talk about his wrath. They may talk a lot about what you have to do, but not his sovereignty. They may downplay the Cross. Many today don’t care to talk about sin & repentance at all & that’s the whole Gospel.

Be familiar w/ church history, how things have been taught. This has always been stressed as being important. God's truths don't change. If they do, he can't be trusted, & I can't tell if something is just being done by the mob & the person who talked the loudest who was the most popular

 

[Peacemaker1]

I'm glad I sign up.. this is something its confuse me too... but lately it's makes me think one verse can be one meaning but the Lord message is different to everyone... the verse you gave me mark 11 : 24 my message it the promise for me (it will be yours) why? I understand praying process.. other is healing.. but the verse has the same meaning ask (pray).. believe... it's will be yours.
I hope you and other can drop me few words and verse too. Clarify me this too.. would love some bible verse too. ✌ ✌

asking in prayer is for the soul of others, not yourself, God hears no sinners, sinners are self seeking.

look for Gods will, this cant lie, but men follow their own will, they cant speak the truth. ( for forum shows mens will not Gods)



John 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 9:31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.

John 11:40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?
41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.
42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

 

[Peacemaker1]

One way to tell if a church is teaching right is if they don’t teach the full context of a verse. They find verses they like & ignore the surrounding verses. They come in with a goal, scour the Bible for a verse that confirms their goal, & just teach that verse. This is the tried & true graveyard of any church. Many churches do this. I’ve seen it lead churches to ruin.

Churches that don’t teach right over-emphasize certain topics & don’t say a peep about other topics. They may have a lot to say about God’s love, but don’t talk about his wrath. They may talk a lot about what you have to do, but not his sovereignty. They may downplay the Cross. Many today don’t care to talk about sin & repentance at all & that’s the whole Gospel.

Be familiar w/ church history, how things have been taught. This has always been stressed as being important. God's truths don't change. If they do, he can't be trusted, & I can't tell if something is just being done by the mob & the person who talked the loudest who was the most popular

yes, anybody who speaks truly about one aspect of God, and leaves out other judgement, is attempting to steer people in their own direction, and not the whole of God.

There is one to trust, not another, it is Jesus Christ, the fool trusts in themselves, and the biggest fools trust in man.

 

[The Liturgist]

One way to tell if a church is teaching right is if they don’t teach the full context of a verse. They find verses they like & ignore the surrounding verses. They come in with a goal, scour the Bible for a verse that confirms their goal, & just teach that verse. This is the tried & true graveyard of any church. Many churches do this. I’ve seen it lead churches to ruin.

Churches that don’t teach right over-emphasize certain topics & don’t say a peep about other topics. They may have a lot to say about God’s love, but don’t talk about his wrath. They may talk a lot about what you have to do, but not his sovereignty. They may downplay the Cross. Many today don’t care to talk about sin & repentance at all & that’s the whole Gospel.

Be familiar w/ church history, how things have been taught. This has always been stressed as being important. God's truths don't change. If they do, he can't be trusted, & I can't tell if something is just being done by the mob & the person who talked the loudest who was the most popular

In general I disagree. For this reason I am opposed to churches not using lectionaries, although I am also opposed to using the three year Revised Common Lectionary due to the passages it omits, which most traditional one year lectionaries include. However, there is a fix for the RCL in the form of Year D, focused on the Gospel of John, and proposed by a Presbyterian minister.

It was my intention last year (which was Year A) to post weekly the lections from year D, but I was not well enough. And I was also sick at the start of Advent. So what I think I ought to do is write a webpage that dynamically quotes the pericopes from each of the major lectionaries including all three years of the RCL, and year D. Writing it so that it quotes all years of the three year lectionary would also simplify the coding.