Under whose authority do you say you have the correct interpretation of the Bible?

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

It's often been said that pride is at the root of all the divisions in the Church. I've also heard from people on these forums that they decide what church they go to, based on whether or not a church follows the Bible.

The natural issue here is, every church claims to follow the Bible! But people think that their interpretation is the most important, so they go to a church that agrees with them (not all Christians, but a lot).

Why do you think you have the correct interpretation? Even if you don't think the Pope's office is Biblical, does that mean it isn't? If you think that the Trinity isn't Biblical, does that mean it isn't? Neither issue here is particularly obvious, if you look through Scripture, trying to find it. But Church councils have agreed that both of these are very much Biblical!

As we learn more about the Bible, our answer to different issues tends to change. You may think the death penalty is okay, with Bible verses on justice to support it; but as you read more about mercy, and the dignity of every life, you may decide that the death penalty really isn't okay.

So whose authority to you say you have the correct Bible interpretation? And if you say "The Holy Spirit", keep in mind that people who wildly disagree with you will say the same thing, as does the Catholic Church.

Christ founded a church 2,000 years ago; that means there's been 2,000 years of scholars, councils, debates, and many ways of defining what the Bible is teaching. While the official teachings in the Catechism will sometimes change to meet the changing times, issues like the Trinity, works & faith salvation, the Sacrements, what books belong in the Bible, and many other unchanging issues go back early in Church history.

I cannot say that I have a proper interpretation of the Bible; it's far too complex. But I side with the authority of the Catholic Church, with the teachings of the Catechism, with a development of doctrine as people graced by wisdom & understanding further refine just what God wants us to do.

But if you just use your own Bible, disregarding issues already settled by people much more educated than you, who lived much closer to Christ's time, before denominations were a thing (just the Church & heresies), if you think you have more wisdom than the Church fathers, and the teaching authority of the Church that is only logical that Christ would leave with us...

Then why do you think your interpretation is correct?

 

[Dave L]

It's often been said that pride is at the root of all the divisions in the Church. I've also heard from people on these forums that they decide what church they go to, based on whether or not a church follows the Bible.

The natural issue here is, every church claims to follow the Bible! But people think that their interpretation is the most important, so they go to a church that agrees with them (not all Christians, but a lot).

Why do you think you have the correct interpretation? Even if you don't think the Pope's office is Biblical, does that mean it isn't? If you think that the Trinity isn't Biblical, does that mean it isn't? Neither issue here is particularly obvious, if you look through Scripture, trying to find it. But Church councils have agreed that both of these are very much Biblical!

As we learn more about the Bible, our answer to different issues tends to change. You may think the death penalty is okay, with Bible verses on justice to support it; but as you read more about mercy, and the dignity of every life, you may decide that the death penalty really isn't okay.

So whose authority to you say you have the correct Bible interpretation? And if you say "The Holy Spirit", keep in mind that people who wildly disagree with you will say the same thing, as does the Catholic Church.

Christ founded a church 2,000 years ago; that means there's been 2,000 years of scholars, councils, debates, and many ways of defining what the Bible is teaching. While the official teachings in the Catechism will sometimes change to meet the changing times, issues like the Trinity, works & faith salvation, the Sacrements, what books belong in the Bible, and many other unchanging issues go back early in Church history.

I cannot say that I have a proper interpretation of the Bible; it's far too complex. But I side with the authority of the Catholic Church, with the teachings of the Catechism, with a development of doctrine as people graced by wisdom & understanding further refine just what God wants us to do.

But if you just use your own Bible, disregarding issues already settled by people much more educated than you, who lived much closer to Christ's time, before denominations were a thing (just the Church & heresies), if you think you have more wisdom than the Church fathers, and the teaching authority of the Church that is only logical that Christ would leave with us...

Then why do you think your interpretation is correct?

View attachment 249739

I think the Ecumenical Creeds are trustworthy along with many other doctrinal statements if we consider the amount of debate that helped produce them.

 

[Hazelelponi]

So, your asking by whose authority do I worship God in the manner (and denomination) that I do?

God's authority.

Even if I'm found to be wrong, I have trusted God to lead me to His Truth and believe myself led by God to this point, where my beliefs stand today.

So if my beliefs are right and I am indeed filled of the Holy Spirit, then I'm right. And if I'm wrong, then I was never a child of God to begin with, and He simply doesn't want me.

I'm just trusting in God. That's all, and worshipping Him the way I believe He is desirous of being worshipped, as outlined in the Bible and with the understanding I developed after coming to what I believe to be a saving knowledge of Christ.

As a beside, I'm trusting and believing God so strongly that I will die on this belief. So I don't feel able to be shaken from this point. I'm either right or hell bound, but I would die on the absolute belief that I'm right and not insane..

 

[section9+1]

I won't say I have the correct understanding of the bible. But the understanding I do have is the best my ability allows me at this time. As time goes by it changes and revises itself. My authority. And that's good enough for me.

 

[Seadish]

I study much but always during before and after I go to the Word of God period. If and when God shows me different takes in scripture than previous, it is because His word is alive. Not because it changes but because there is so much that He says in just one verse. I do not do religion although lately am preferring Nazarene, which I find interesting that there are no Nazarene sections here, at least what I can see.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

But people think that their interpretation is the most important

It is the most important. My interpretation is the only one that determines my fate.

Why do you think you have the correct interpretation?

I never have a perfect interpretation. Neither do you. A man can be a genius, but if he isn't as smart as he thinks he is, then he will behave like a fool. Your church has no perfect doctrine, either, but if it considers itself infallible, then it will be the most fallen church on earth. Everything needs caution.

But I side with the authority of the Catholic Church

I side with the authority of Christ.

Even if you don't think the Pope's office is Biblical, does that mean it isn't?

I know a tree by its fruit.

 

[Albion]

Christ founded a church 2,000 years ago; that means there's been 2,000 years of scholars, councils, debates, and many ways of defining what the Bible is teaching.

All of which is part of the inherited knowledge of all Christian denominations other than, perhaps, for some of the very unorthodox cults and new religions, etc., that are classified as Christian because there is no other grouping that comes closer.

While the official teachings in the Catechism will sometimes change to meet the changing times, issues like the Trinity, works & faith salvation, the Sacrements, what books belong in the Bible, and many other unchanging issues go back early in Church history.

And they certainly are not exclusive to the Roman Catholic Church.

I cannot say that I have a proper interpretation of the Bible; it's far too complex. But I side with the authority of the Catholic Church, with the teachings of the Catechism, with a development of doctrine as people graced by wisdom & understanding further refine just what God wants us to do.

What this does is merely remove the search one degree further. First, it is asked how anyone knows the correct doctrines derived from Scripture and then, second, it is suggested that in order to answer the question we step away from Scripture and decide which human authority to defer to in answering about Scripture.

If that is the approach, we might just as well choose to go with some other of the many alleged prophets, denominational leaders, modern-day "apostles," or even someone who says he dug up the real answer from a hill in New York state.

But if you just use your own Bible, disregarding issues already settled by people much more educated than you, who lived much closer to Christ's time, before denominations were a thing (just the Church & heresies), if you think you have more wisdom than the Church fathers, and the teaching authority of the Church that is only logical that Christ would leave with us...

Then why do you think your interpretation is correct?

As usual, the Roman Catholic churchman approaches this question about the correct understanding of Scripture, armed with two falsehoods that he has been taught:

1. Christ founded one certain denomination (the speaker's own church) and one only.

2. All Protestants simply decide for themselves what the Bible says and that this is also what their denominations encourage.

The question of this thread is, IMHO, a worthy one; but it can never be answered so long as these two denominational myths are built into the process of finding the answer.

 

[RDKirk]

The Holy Spirit tells me. If He uses it, it's an okay interpretation.

But even then, there may be passages in any interpretation that the Holy Spirit may tell me, "That's not the best, this one is better."

That's why I generally use two or three bibles.

When I was in high school, I used The Living Bible. That's about as loose as I'll go with paraphrasing. I really, really don't like The Message. Too many places in it where the Holy Spirit has told me, "That's not right" instead of "that's not best."

I'll use the 1988 NIV perhaps most often because I bought one in 1990 and I've been making margin notes in it since then. But that's actually an NIV/KJV parallel bible, so I'm always reading and comparing the two versions. It's getting ragged, though. I'll either have to find a professional bookmender or start transferring my notes to a new bible.

At work I read a Holman's Military version, because I first bought it when I was active duty, and the Holman's Military is sized to fit the cargo pocket of the Battle Dress Uniform.

 

[Jonaitis]

The inward illumination of the Holy Spirit is necessary for a saving understanding of what is revealed in the Scriptures; but as it is noted, this can appear subjective to an individual.

Some things in Scripture are clearer than others, and some people understand the teachings more clearly than others. However, the things that must be known, believed, and obeyed for salvation are so clearly set forth and explained in one part of Scripture or another that both the educated and uneducated may achieve a sufficient understanding of them by properly using ordinary means.

The infallible rule for interpreting Scripture is the Scriptures itself. Therefore, when there is a question about the true and full meaning of any part of Scripture (and each passage has only one meaning, not many), it must be understood in light of other passages that speak more clearly.

Let's take this passage for an example:

"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." - James 2:24

How do we understand this passage in light of this one?:

"For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." - Romans 3:28

Well, this is discussed, not only in the context of James, but also in the book of Romans. The apostle Paul actually does affirm James in the same book that the quote above is taken from. He says thus,

"For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified." - Romans 2:13

Did the apostle Paul just contradict himself in two chapters? No. Whereas James calls that faith that does not work righteousness a dead faith, the apostle Paul says it is a man who just hears. A dead faith is the same thing as no faith, frankly, or as someone who hears the truth and does not actually believe in it. They are talking about two different kinds of justification. The book of Hebrews, in my opinion, would be my next go to. In the eleventh chapter, the inspired writer explains that,

"Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old receive their commendation." - Hebrews 1:1-2

After this, he explains throughout the entire chapter how many men in biblical history did many things, because they had faith in God and his promises, "having seen them and greeted them from afar" (v. 13). No one builds an Ark, unless they believed God's word. No one journeys into a distant land to possess it for an inheritance, unless they believed God's word. No one suffers mocking, flogging, imprisonment, stoning, sawn in two and killed with the sword (v. 36), unless they believed God's word. Their faith proved itself to be true when it acted out.

Positionally, we stand justified on account of the accomplished merits of Jesus Christ on our behalf, in his righteous life under the law and passive obedience on the cross, by faith. But, can that faith save me if I prove by my life that I really don't consider the things Christ has done for me to be true? On judgment day, will my works justify my faith? Will my works justify my profession? Will my works justify my Christianity?

James actually says this same thing, in this same language:

"But someone will say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." - James 2:18

In other words, if you have faith without works, prove it. I will show you that I really have faith by my works. This will justify me before God that I really trusted in his only Son as my only righteousness and salvation.

Scripture should always interpret Scripture.

 

[eleos1954]

It's often been said that pride is at the root of all the divisions in the Church. I've also heard from people on these forums that they decide what church they go to, based on whether or not a church follows the Bible.

The natural issue here is, every church claims to follow the Bible! But people think that their interpretation is the most important, so they go to a church that agrees with them (not all Christians, but a lot).

Why do you think you have the correct interpretation? Even if you don't think the Pope's office is Biblical, does that mean it isn't? If you think that the Trinity isn't Biblical, does that mean it isn't? Neither issue here is particularly obvious, if you look through Scripture, trying to find it. But Church councils have agreed that both of these are very much Biblical!

As we learn more about the Bible, our answer to different issues tends to change. You may think the death penalty is okay, with Bible verses on justice to support it; but as you read more about mercy, and the dignity of every life, you may decide that the death penalty really isn't okay.

So whose authority to you say you have the correct Bible interpretation? And if you say "The Holy Spirit", keep in mind that people who wildly disagree with you will say the same thing, as does the Catholic Church.

Christ founded a church 2,000 years ago; that means there's been 2,000 years of scholars, councils, debates, and many ways of defining what the Bible is teaching. While the official teachings in the Catechism will sometimes change to meet the changing times, issues like the Trinity, works & faith salvation, the Sacrements, what books belong in the Bible, and many other unchanging issues go back early in Church history.

I cannot say that I have a proper interpretation of the Bible; it's far too complex. But I side with the authority of the Catholic Church, with the teachings of the Catechism, with a development of doctrine as people graced by wisdom & understanding further refine just what God wants us to do.

But if you just use your own Bible, disregarding issues already settled by people much more educated than you, who lived much closer to Christ's time, before denominations were a thing (just the Church & heresies), if you think you have more wisdom than the Church fathers, and the teaching authority of the Church that is only logical that Christ would leave with us...

Then why do you think your interpretation is correct?

View attachment 249739

***

Matthew 28:18-20

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

 

[Jonaitis]

But, to add to my previous post above, Augustine's book De Doctrina Christiana is something I would recommend, actually. It is a great starter for someone to understand some basic concepts in interpreting the Scripture rightly.

His final conclusion is that all interpretation should be for the sole aim to love God and our neighbor. If the interpretation fails at succeeding this, then it is likely a false interpretation. All matters in Scripture attend to train the man of God to love and serve him. Scripture should build up, encourage, comfort, and train us for what is good and right.

Ironically, in this same book he actually strays from the traditional interpretation of the Roman Catholic belief of transubstantiation and that changed nature of the bread and wine:

"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink his blood, yet have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that his flesh was wounded and crucified for us."

When Jesus said to take the bread and wine, as his body and blood, it is to be taken figuratively according to Augustine....

 

[JackRT]

I won't say I have the correct understanding of the bible. But the understanding I do have is the best my ability allows me at this time. As time goes by it changes and revises itself. My authority. And that's good enough for me.

I have had very much the same experience in my faith journey. My Christian identity and understandings have changed greatly over the decades and have been informed by many Christian faith traditions and even some other traditions. From fundamentalism I am now a liberal or progressive Christian.

 

[1213]

...
Then why do you think your interpretation is correct?

If all interpretations can be said to be wrong, why not have them at all?

I think best way is to not make interpretations, but to understand Bible directly as it says things.

 

[Albion]

Ironically, in this same book he actually strays from the traditional interpretation of the Roman Catholic belief of transubstantiation and that changed nature of the bread and wine:

I suppose he would, considering that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not to come along until centuries later.

What Augustine appears to support is the doctrine of the Real Presence, which we also find supported by the other Church Fathers.

 

[Jonaitis]

Albion,

I disagree, but then again I haven't read enough of Augustine. I remember in one other book he said something along the lines of, when we consume the sacrament we have already done so by faith, supporting a Spiritual Presence. But, I won't comment on something any further than what I know.

 

[Albion]

Albion,

I disagree, but then again I haven't read enough of Augustine. I remember in one other book he said something along the lines of, when we consume the sacrament we have already done so by faith, supporting a Spiritual Presence.

Well, a Spiritual Presence would be in accord with Real Presence. It's a Symbolic Presence that is not (if that isn't an oxymoron in the first place). This may be the key to understanding Augustine's view.

 

[W2L]

Simplicity.

 

[Jonaitis]

Well, a Spiritual Presence would be in accord with Real Presence. It's a Symbolic Presence that is not (if that isn't an oxymoron in the first place).

Real Presence is something found in the Orthodox and Lutheran churches...

I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

 

[Tigger45]

I study much but always during before and after I go to the Word of God period. If and when God shows me different takes in scripture than previous, it is because His word is alive. Not because it changes but because there is so much that He says in just one verse. I do not do religion although lately am preferring Nazarene, which I find interesting that there are no Nazarene sections here, at least what I can see.

Here ya go>
Wesley's Parish - Methodist/ Nazaren

 

[Albion]

Real Presence is something found in the Orthodox and Lutheran churches...

I guess I am missing the point of that. Yes, they do, although both of them qualify their belief in some way or other.