The blessing and the curse of personal interpretation of scripture

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 claim that Catholicism is the apostolic church is nothing more than a Catholic myth. Rome wasn't the sole bishoprate with all others defering to them, in fact they weren't even the most well regarded.
So what? The Church wasn't built on Rome, it was built on Peter. Matt 16:18
The earliest indication of any sort of authority came from the state, and that because Rome was the capital of the empire not any sort of apostolic claim.
The reason the Church is centered at Rome is because Rome was the center of the empire. Church authority was Peter's first and the others. Jesus said so.
The claim of a line of papal succession is also suspect since all of the evidence from Rome indicates the church at Rome was governed by a council not an episcopal bishop. The earliest claim of such a thing comes from Stephen in a letter attempting to assert apostolic authority, but that claim does not seem to have been accepted by the church at large at the time as his attempt to avoid a council by invoking it was denied. Though even then the idea of a papacy was not established until Leo's Festus 3. In effect, the primary claims of the Catholic church appear to be nothing more than revisionism.
You're forgetting Pope Clement's letter to the Corinthians. The Bishop of Rome addressing problems in the church in Corinth.
I will agree that the Papacy developed,primarily when the Empire moved government to Constantinople, sucking all the officials there, leaving the Church to govern Rome. Now back to topic...
But the Bible was compiled by the Church in the 4th century, and we know what it says based on the writings of the Early Church Fathers.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
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
Starting with the chaos created from the beginnings of the church. It doesn't take much reading in the New Testament to realize that there were differences in the early churches that needed to be resolved. That has continued throughout church history. Even though the Catholic church claims to be infallible there is no basis for the claim.

The only authoritative source is the Bible. Sola scriptura.
I agree there were differences, but how were they resolved? They asked the Church. Meaning leadership. Aposles and their successors.
 
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
So I am not a blind follower. Thanks for not including me in the class of people who can't think for themselves.
When you think for yourself humbly, you know the Truth of Catholicism.
 
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
So what? The Church wasn't built on Rome, it was built on Peter. Matt 16:18 The reason the Church is centered at Rome is because Rome was the center of the empire. Church authority was Peter's first and the others. Jesus said so.You're forgetting Pope Clement's letter to the Corinthians. The Bishop of Rome addressing problems in the church in Corinth.
I will agree that the Papacy developed,primarily when the Empire moved government to Constantinople, sucking all the officials there, leaving the Church to govern Rome. Now back to topic...
But the Bible was compiled by the Church in the 4th century, and we know what it says based on the writings of the Early Church Fathers.
[/QUOTE]
The argument that Rome's authority came from Peter was an invention of scholars in the 3rd century and the first official claim of it is from Leo, prior to that every attempted invocation of Roman authority rested either on the political powers, or Paul's martyrdom(with Peter as a footnote).

As for the canon, Scripture developed far more naturally. No individual or council curated a list of books, instead they recognized the letters that came to be the corpus of instruction at community meetings. The only reason they realized there needed to be an official recognition was in response to heretics like Marcion and Mani who tried to curate their own lists of Scripture so the church reacted by recognizing what was already in use as official.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
9,844
1,707
58
New England
✟484,033.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi everyone, new poster here so please be kind!

I have struggled for a long time with the balance between personal interpretation of scripture, and dependence on people in positions of authority (who may have greater knowledge).

This is an even more acute issue in the current age, where the authority of traditional news sources is being challenged, and people are being encouraged to make up their own minds.

How do we, as a community of Christians, find that balance between personal engagement with scripture, and relying on the people who understand it best to inform us?

Good Day, Robert

Such issues are nothing new with in the Church:

Basil of Caesarea: On the history of views of scripture




Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): Liberated from the error of
pagan tradition through the benevolence and loving kindness
of the good God, with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
by the operation of the Holy Spirit, I was reared from the very
beginning by Christian parents. From them I learned even in
babyhood the Holy Scriptures which led me to a knowledge of
the truth. When I grew to manhood, I traveled about frequently
and, in the natural course of things, I engaged in a great many
worldly affairs. Here I observed that the most harmonious
relations existed among those trained in the pursuit of each of
the arts and sciences; while in the Church of God alone, for
which Christ died and upon which He poured out in
abundance the Holy Spirit, I noticed that many disagree
violently with one another and also in their understanding of
the Holy Scriptures.
Most alarming of all is the fact that I found
the very leaders of the Church themselves at such variance
with one another in thought and opinion
, showing so much
opposition to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so
mercilessly rendering asunder the Church of God and cruelly
confounding His flock that, in our day, with the rise of the
Anomoeans, there is fulfilled in them as never before the
prophecy, ‘Of your own selves shall men arise speaking
perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.’
Witnessing such disorders as these and perplexed as to what
the cause and source of such evil might be, I at first was in a
state, as it were, of thick darkness and, as if on a balance, I
veered now this way, now that—attracted now to one man,
now to another, under the influence of protracted association
with these persons, and then thrust in the other direction, as I
bethought myself of the validity of the Holy Scriptures. After a
long time spent in this state of indecision and while I was still
busily searching for the cause I have mentioned, there came to
my mind the Book of Judges which tells how each man did
what was right in his own eyes and gives the reason for this in
the words” ‘In those days there was no king in Israel.’ With
these words in my mind, then, I applied also to the present
circumstances that explanation which, incredible and
frightening as it may be, is quite truly pertinent when it is
understood; for never before has there arisen such discord
and quarreling as now among the the members of the Church
in consequence of their turning away from the one, great, and
true God, only King of the universe. Each man, indeed,
abandons the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and arrogates
to himself authority in dealing with certain questions, making
his own private rules, and preferring to exercise leadership in
opposition to the Lord to being led by the Lord.
Reflecting
upon this and aghast at the magnitude of the impiety, I
pursued my investigation further and became convinced that
the aforesaid cause was no less the true source also of secular
difficulties. I noticed that as long as the common obedience of
the others to some one leader was maintained, all was
discipline and harmony in the whole group; but that division
and discord and a rivalry of leaders besides proceeded from a
lack of leadership. Moreover, I once had observed how even a
swarm of bees, in accordance with a law of nature, lives under
military discipline and obeys its own king with orderly
precision. Many such instances have I witnessed and many
others I have heard of, and persons who make profession of
such matters know many more still, so that they can vouch for
the truth of what I have said. Now, if good order with its
attendant harmony is characteristic of those who look to one
source of authority and are subject to one king, then universal
disorder and disharmony are a sign that leadership is wanting.
By the same token, if we discover in our midst such a lack of
accord as I have mentioned, both with regard to one another
and with respect to the Lord’s commands, it would be an
indictment either of our rejection of the true king, according
to the Scriptural saying: ‘only that he who now holdeth, do
hold, until he be taken out of the way,’ or of denial of Him
according to the Psalmist: ‘The fool hath said in his heart:
There is no God.’ And as a kind of token or proof of this, there
follow the words: ‘They are corrupt and are become
abominable in their ways.’ Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9,
Preface on the Judgment of God (New York: Fathers of the
Church, Inc., 1950), pp. 37-39.


You may find this helpful:


In Him,

Bill
 
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
9,844
1,707
58
New England
✟484,033.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I can see that you are among those that have their very own 'individual' interpretation of scripture. Just like the thousands of denominations, each, with their own unique interpretation of scripture too. :doh:


Good Day, Lost4words

Just to put some context around the statement as well as the source of such a statement.

The source is the two-volume World Christian Encyclopedia (Barrett, Kurian, and Johnson; Oxford University Press). Take note of the passage where the 33,000 figure comes up:

World Christianity consists of 6 major ecclesiastico-cultural blocs, divided into 300 major ecclesiastical traditions, composed [sic] of over 33,000 distinct denominations in 238 countries (Vol. I, p. 16).


The WCE then goes on to break down “world Christianity” into the following broad categories:

  • Independents: 22,000 denominations
  • Protestants: 9000 denominations
  • Marginals: 1600 denominations
  • Orthodox: 781 denominations
  • Catholics: 242 denominations
  • Anglicans: 168 denominations
Not that I think denominations are of necessity a bad thing....


In Him,

Bill
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,187
Yorktown VA
✟176,292.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The WCE then goes on to break down “world Christianity” into the following broad categories:
  • Independents: 22,000 denominations
  • Protestants: 9000 denominations
  • Marginals: 1600 denominations
  • Orthodox: 781 denominations
  • Catholics: 242 denominations
  • Anglicans: 168 denominations

I'm curious how they get 781 Orthodox and 242 Catholic denominations. There are various splinter groups from each of us which would make some sense. For example there is Pope Michael in Kansas, who was elected "pope" by a group of six people including his parents, but I hardly consider that a "denomination" like the Old Catholic church which split after Vatican 1.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Root of Jesse
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
9,844
1,707
58
New England
✟484,033.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm curious how they get 781 Orthodox and 242 Catholic denominations. There are various splinter groups from each of us which would make some sense. For example there is Pope Michael in Kansas, who was elected "pope" by a group of six people including his parents, but I hardly consider that a "denomination" like the Old Catholic church which split after Vatican 1.


Good Day, GreekOrthodox

I am not sure I do not own the work... it does get quoted often so just figured I would put some context around what makes up the thousands of denominations in Christianity.

In Him,

Bill
 
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,187
Yorktown VA
✟176,292.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Good Day, GreekOrthodox

I am not sure I do not own the work... it does get quoted often so just figured I would put some context around what makes up the thousands of denominations in Christianity.

In Him,

Bill

Thanks, I'm always a bit skeptical of that 33K "list" as I don't think I've seen what is defined as a "denomination". For example, the Orthodox church in the U.S. is made of various jurisdictions, such as Greek, Antiochian, Serbian, etc.. I'm Greek Orthodox but I can attend as a full communicant any canonical Orthodox parish. So do they count each jurisdiction as denomination? Is the Greek Orthodox church in Greece counted as the same as the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America? Once you get into the non-denominational churches, is each one separate or are they grouped together in some loose definition?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBAS 64
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
Thanks, I'm always a bit skeptical of that 33K "list" as I don't think I've seen what is defined as a "denomination". For example, the Orthodox church in the U.S. is made of various jurisdictions, such as Greek, Antiochian, Serbian, etc.. I'm Greek Orthodox but I can attend as a full communicant any canonical Orthodox parish. So do they count each jurisdiction as denomination? Is the Greek Orthodox church in Greece counted as the same as the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America? Once you get into the non-denominational churches, is each one separate or are they grouped together in some loose definition?

You all are aware that the subject of the thread is "the blessing and the curse of personal interpretation of Scripture", correct?
 
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

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,884
3,525
✟320,712.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Hi everyone, new poster here so please be kind!

I have struggled for a long time with the balance between personal interpretation of scripture, and dependence on people in positions of authority (who may have greater knowledge).

This is an even more acute issue in the current age, where the authority of traditional news sources is being challenged, and people are being encouraged to make up their own minds.

How do we, as a community of Christians, find that balance between personal engagement with scripture, and relying on the people who understand it best to inform us?
It seems that differences of opinion based on Scripture, rampant as they've been in the past, are growing now-certainly with no formal mechanism to control it. And in any case the Christian faith was never strictly about exegesis, as if the best, most educated scholar should necessarily have the straight scoop on it all. Such scholars disagree with each other on relevant matters of the faith. My own journey took me back to the teachings of the ancient churches, after studying those teachings through catechisms, the decrees of councils, writings of ECFs, church histories, etc. FWIW
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Root of Jesse
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
It seems that differences of opinion based on Scripture, rampant as they've been in the past, are growing now-certainly with no formal mechanism to control it. And in any case the Christian faith was never strictly about exegesis, as if the best, most educated scholar should necessarily have the straight scoop on it all. Such scholars disagree with each other on relevant matters of the faith. My own journey took me back to the teachings of the ancient churches, after studying those teachings through catechisms, the decrees of councils, writings of ECFs, church histories, etc. FWIW

The Catholics claim that their denomination was the first and therefore the "pure" church. Supposedly other denominations are corrupt because they don't agree with the Catholic teachings and/or the Pope.

Apparently they haven't read Revelation 2-3 which has scathing criticisms of the various churches. Not only were they separate but they were warned to change their corrupt ways or else their "lampstand(s)" would be removed.
 
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 argument that Rome's authority came from Peter was an invention of scholars in the 3rd century and the first official claim of it is from Leo, prior to that every attempted invocation of Roman authority rested either on the political powers, or Paul's martyrdom(with Peter as a footnote).
[/quote]I guess you haven't read the gospel of Matthew, where Peter's authority was conferred by Jesus? And regarding succession, immediately after Judas' suicide, how the apostles appointed a successor? Or how Paul appointed Timothy and Titus and passed on that authority he had as an apostle?
Again, it's not "Rome's" authority. It belongs to the apostle and his successors. It doesn't matter where that apostle was.
As for the canon, Scripture developed far more naturally. No individual or council curated a list of books, instead they recognized the letters that came to be the corpus of instruction at community meetings. The only reason they realized there needed to be an official recognition was in response to heretics like Marcion and Mani who tried to curate their own lists of Scripture so the church reacted by recognizing what was already in use as official.
It did develop naturally. The way the Canon was chosen was because of what was used in liturgy and prayer. That's pretty much it. The Council of Rome met, discussed it, and set the Canon.
You have, though, spoken of a principal that always did exist. The Church never actually set anything in stone until there was some question about that subject. So, there were questions about whether some book could be used in liturgy, and after some time, the concil met, and decided what the Canon was. This is also why it wasn't codified until the Council of Trent for the entire Church. But the principal is also in effect for all other doctrines and dogmas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lost4words
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 Catholics claim that their denomination was the first and therefore the "pure" church. Supposedly other denominations are corrupt because they don't agree with the Catholic teachings and/or the Pope.

Apparently they haven't read Revelation 2-3 which has scathing criticisms of the various churches. Not only were they separate but they were warned to change their corrupt ways or else their "lampstand(s)" would be removed.
I object to your characterization of our 'claim'. The Catholic Church's faith is what's pure, perfect. Why? Because our faith comes from what Jesus taught. Every doctrine and dogma and article of faith is Scriptural. I don't think we're more pure because of that. We are all sinners, no doubt. And I don't believe other denominations are corrupt. The Catholic Church says that all religions and denominations have some of the Truth. But that the Catholic Church is the whole, entire Truth.
Yes, Revelation has scathing criticisms of the seven churches. Why? Because those in the churches were not living according to the faith. That's the truth about all of us. All of us are convicted of not being perfect.
If you know that Revelation was written by John, the Apostle, and you know what his jurisdiction was, you also know that all those churches were in cities in his jurisdiction, so they were all in the diocese that John was the bishop of.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Lost4words
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,884
3,525
✟320,712.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The Catholics claim that their denomination was the first and therefore the "pure" church. Supposedly other denominations are corrupt because they don't agree with the Catholic teachings and/or the Pope.

Apparently they haven't read Revelation 2-3 which has scathing criticisms of the various churches. Not only were they separate but they were warned to change their corrupt ways or else their "lampstand(s)" would be removed.
Sooo....we should applaud differences, disunion, error or just plain wrong practices and sin now? Rev 2-3 means that we should have differences in the basic teachings of the faith? It's very possible that those churches all possessed right and unified teachings, but simply didn't fully adhere to them, which is a constant battle regardless. In any case there's only one gospel. And there can only be one church, however it's identified. The CC for it's part teaches that many Protestant denominations teach truth, but not in all of its fullness, and are part of that one church whereas the EO, for example, does teach Christ's gospel correctly. Every denomination and individual believe themselves to have it down right, BTW (which is why we have so many differences), or else they'd shift to another denomination or set of beliefs.
 
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

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
I guess you haven't read the gospel of Matthew, where Peter's authority was conferred by Jesus? And regarding succession, immediately after Judas' suicide, how the apostles appointed a successor? Or how Paul appointed Timothy and Titus and passed on that authority he had as an apostle?
I've read the verses, but they don't mean what the Catholic church claims they mean. And that interpretation is what was the invention of 3rd century scholars, and was largely rejected as spurious until Leo invoked it to try to claim authority. Mentions prior to ~250 on the verse show no indication that such an interpretation had entered anyones mind, and the historical record denies any sort of direct line of succession within Rome since the first bishop of Rome appears to be Stephen with the church at Rome being ruled by a council prior and even the idea that Stephen was sole head of Rome is questionable.

Again, it's not "Rome's" authority. It belongs to the apostle and his successors. It doesn't matter where that apostle was.It did develop naturally. The way the Canon was chosen was because of what was used in liturgy and prayer. That's pretty much it. The Council of Rome met, discussed it, and set the Canon.
You have, though, spoken of a principal that always did exist. The Church never actually set anything in stone until there was some question about that subject. So, there were questions about whether some book could be used in liturgy, and after some time, the concil met, and decided what the Canon was. This is also why it wasn't codified until the Council of Trent for the entire Church. But the principal is also in effect for all other doctrines and dogmas.
And again the claim of apostolic succession doesn't match the historical record, and that's not even including late crises like the time there were 3 popes at the same time and the various times that there was no legitimate claimant to the papacy. The whole claim was a late invention to try to grant authority to the Roman church and nothing more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,050
North Carolina
✟273,614.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No, you are confusing the law of Moses that was written by Moses that was placed on the side of the ark, not inside,
The stone tablets were in the Ark (Exodus 25:16, 21; Deuteronomy 10:2; 2 Chronicles 5:10, 6:11).
and was added because of sin Gal 3:19 and was contrary to us Col 2:14.
The Mosiac Covenant was temporarily added to the Abrahamic Covenant (Hebrews 8:13).
God’s laws are righteous, pure, perfect, spiritual, eternal and made from love, and how could they not be as it was written by God Himself!

Again, you are making an argument I was not making from my post and getting a bit off topic to the OP.
Okay, lets end it here.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,884
3,525
✟320,712.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
And again the claim of apostolic succession doesn't match the historical record, and that's not even including late crises like the time there were 3 popes at the same time and the various times that there was no legitimate claimant to the papacy. The whole claim was a late invention to try to grant authority to the Roman church and nothing more.
Despite human folly, fumblings, limitations, weaknesses, sin, and stupidity-and because of those things-the necessity for some kind of "mechanism" to ensure guidance by the Holy Spirit in keeping the faith intact and unified should be almost self-evident. Divisions do not somehow abrogate that need-that gift must exist somewhere in order for God's church to truly prevail.
 
Last edited:
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
Despite human folly, fumblings, limitations, weaknesses, sin, and stupidity-and because of those things-the necessity for some kind of "mechanism" to ensure guidance by the Holy Spirit in keeping the faith intact and unified should be almost self-evident. Divisions do not somehow abrogate that need-that gift must exist somewhere in order for God's church to truly prevail.
While that's a logical defense, looking at the historic picture the claims of the supposed mechanism don't trace back to the original churches. We have 3 generations of writers, the Apostolic Fathers, the Apologists, and the ECF that all wrote before the claim of direct apostolic transmission appears which if such were the case why none of them thought to mention it is pretty suspect. The other thing is that the claim evolved over time, first asserting a coincidental authority with councils as an authentic advisor, then assuming a role of equality with councils, then asserting a dominance over councils, and finally asserting absolute dominance over councils. Claims like papal infallibility are no where in the historic record until scholastic theology was in full fledge, finally being asserted by Innocent IX and not being elaborated on until Vatican II with a full elaboration still waiting and appears to only be evident in retrospect(as in, if a statement by the pope is demonstrably false, then he wasn't speaking from the chair but if a claim stands we have no way of knowing if its from the chair or from the man.) It's an unnecessary addition, and from my vantage point is nothing more than treating doctrines of men above the Word of God.
 
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

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
10,019
4,233
USA
✟470,511.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The stone tablets were in the Ark (Exodus 25:16, 21; Deuteronomy 10:2; 2 Chronicles 5:10, 6:11).

The Mosiac Covenant was temporarily added to the Abrahamic Covenant (Hebrews 8:13).

Okay, lets end it here.
You're mixing the covenants- law of God which is eternal Psalms 89:34 and the law of Moses which is temporary (and why it was on the side of the ark, not inside Deut 31:26 ) Col 2:14, Hebrews 8:13

Hope this helps.

God bless
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0