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

[Not David]

So for the Orthodox it is tradition which interprets the Scriptures but not always infallibly?

Well, if there was something wrong then there would had been others who criticize those ideas.
The question is kind of vague so I not really sure what do you have in mind.

 

[JackRT]

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.

The Bible cannot be properly understood out of its entire context. For example:

Matthew 5:39 --- “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” --- In an honour/shame, domination/submission culture such as existed in the first century in the Middle East, this saying has a far different meaning than a straightforward reading of it might indicate. If a man were to strike a social equal, he would strike him with the palm of his right hand on the left cheek. However if a man were to slap a social inferior he would do so with the back of his hand to the inferior’s right cheek. If the inferior were then to turn his other cheek it would force his assailant to treat him as a social equal by striking with the palm of his right hand. Since slapping is no longer a widespread cultural practice, it can be helpful if you could actually act this out with another person. Jesus’ audience likely would have had a good laugh at his comment. Jesus is not counseling humility here, he is counseling a covert defiance.


Matthew 5:40 ---“If someone sues you for your coat, give up your shirt as well.” --- In Jewish law if you fail to repay a debt you may be taken to court and if you are still unable to repay, the lender is entitled to take your coat. The lender holds the coat during the day but he is obliged to return it at night because the coat or cloak doubled as a blanket at night. In a two-garment society this would be highly embarrassing to the debtor. However it would be even more embarrassing to the court and the lender if the debtor were to turn over both garments and stand there naked. Remember this was a society with a strong taboo against public nakedness. Using this somewhat risque humour Jesus is once again counseling covert defiance and taking the part of the poor against the rich. I'll bet his audience laughed out loud. Humour is a great aid to the memory.


Matthew 5:41 --- “If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” --- In Roman law a soldier had every right to have a civilian carry his pack for one [Roman] mile but no further. For the civilian to carry the pack a further distance would be to embarrass the soldier and possibly to get him in trouble with a superior officer. Once again Jesus takes the part of the small against the powerful by suggesting covert defiance. I suspect that Jesus’ listeners ‘got the message’ especially since it was couched in such sarcastic humour.

Without the context one could draw entirely wrong conclusions.

 

[rockytopva]

23 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. - Matthew

My Authority comes from Heaven
The Authority from man comes from Rome

 

[Not David]

The Bible cannot be properly understood out of its entire context. For example:

Matthew 5:39 --- “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” --- In an honour/shame, domination/submission culture such as existed in the first century in the Middle East, this saying has a far different meaning than a straightforward reading of it might indicate. If a man were to strike a social equal, he would strike him with the palm of his right hand on the left cheek. However if a man were to slap a social inferior he would do so with the back of his hand to the inferior’s right cheek. If the inferior were then to turn his other cheek it would force his assailant to treat him as a social equal by striking with the palm of his right hand. Since slapping is no longer a widespread cultural practice, it can be helpful if you could actually act this out with another person. Jesus’ audience likely would have had a good laugh at his comment. Jesus is not counseling humility here, he is counseling a covert defiance.


Matthew 5:40 ---“If someone sues you for your coat, give up your shirt as well.” --- In Jewish law if you fail to repay a debt you may be taken to court and if you are still unable to repay, the lender is entitled to take your coat. The lender holds the coat during the day but he is obliged to return it at night because the coat or cloak doubled as a blanket at night. In a two-garment society this would be highly embarrassing to the debtor. However it would be even more embarrassing to the court and the lender if the debtor were to turn over both garments and stand there naked. Remember this was a society with a strong taboo against public nakedness. Using this somewhat risque humour Jesus is once again counseling covert defiance and taking the part of the poor against the rich. I'll bet his audience laughed out loud. Humour is a great aid to the memory.


Matthew 5:41 --- “If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” --- In Roman law a soldier had every right to have a civilian carry his pack for one [Roman] mile but no further. For the civilian to carry the pack a further distance would be to embarrass the soldier and possibly to get him in trouble with a superior officer. Once again Jesus takes the part of the small against the powerful by suggesting covert defiance. I suspect that Jesus’ listeners ‘got the message’ especially since it was couched in such sarcastic humour.

Without the context one could draw entirely wrong conclusions.

That's why Sola Scriptura should not be the base of doctrine.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

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

Read below:
"Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

 

[Ing Bee]

Hi Alex-
While I think I understand the question(s), there are some assumptions in your setup that I disagree with or find somewhat leading.

If you are familiar with the old chestnut that goes: "Yes or no: have you stopped beating your child?", you know it's possible to ask a question that is impossible to answer usefully. Perhaps if I point those parts of your post I find problematic you can clarify so that I (and others) can give a more meaningful response.

It's often been said that pride is at the root of all the divisions in the Church.

• How do you understand "the Church"? Who is in it and what is the basis for being part of it? It's so easy to get frustrated or speak past one another if we don't understand the definitions for our respective points of view.
• What do you mean by "divisions in the Church"? That is: Is a disagreement on whether Jesus is "in very nature God" an 'internal division' or an example of "there were not of us"? Are there degrees of divisions? Is fundamental unity in God's household threatened by minor interpretive differences? And on that note...

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...

• Are the central, defining elements of the gospel clear to the average reader?
  • If the answer is "no" then your assertion that "a lot" of Christians think this way can't be true and the reason they would come to a church is to get help from an "expert".
  • If the answer is "yes" then "divisions" are of the "uncritical" variety, and any who reject the essential, easy-to-grasp teachings are not really part of the church anyway so it's "much ado about nothing".
  • If the answer is "no, but people falsely think they understand", then why are they going to a church in the first place? And again, they may not actually be Christians and so are likely excluded from this discussion.
• Can we make a distinction between people who call themselves Christians and those who actually are Christians? If someone attends a local Christian community meeting because they hear what they want to hear, I don't know if that qualifies them as actually sharing the life of Jesus, otherwise they would "hear [his] voice " (2 Timothy 4:1-4). In this case, we have to eliminate them from any actual discussion about anything relating to the new life, including interpretation.
• What do you mean by "people think their interpretation is the most important"?
  • Do you mean they think that personal interpretation is the most important part of the Christian life?
  • Or do you mean they think their personal interpretation is the best?" If it's that latter, are they looking for others who agree with them? How can others agree with someone else's personal interpretation? It's personal!
• Is there a difference between claiming to follow the Bible and actually following the Bible? Can people discern that difference?

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!

• Is "correct interpretation" even the right metric, here? This goes back to the first question: What is the nature of "the Church"? In the New Testament writings it is faith (i.e. interpersonal trust in Jesus) that is the defining characteristic of the Christian communities. A quick survey of uses of "belief" and "faith" in the New Testament (and in the Old Testament) demonstrates that relational trust and loyalty to the PERSON of Son as the representative of the PERSON of the Father is what matters (e.g. the clearest example being 1 John 5:11).
  
• Is the Holy Spirit at work in the life of each believer? If the Holy Spirit indwells all who have been adopted through Christ (Ephesians 1:13-14), then he fulfills all the functions Jesus and the New Testament writers said he would, including as an "interpreter" (1 Corinthians 2:1-16)
• Can Christian leaders be wrong? Peter was wrong and Paul "opposed him to his face" (Galatians 2:11-14). If this is the case in the early church, we should humbly admit that it can be true today. In that case, Jesus' true sheep will listen to the voice of the Good Shepherd, and He will call them and lead them.
• Where do you think the doctrine of the Trinity originated? The church father's quote the New Testament like crazy as the source of their authority. Several scholars (e.g. Dan Wallace) have noted that if we had no New Testament manuscripts we would still have a majority of the New Testament

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.

• What is most important in the Christian life ; is it easily discover-able in the Bible? This goes back to the relative importance of issues in the bible. For instance, one thing you can't get out of the Bible is a teaching that the death penalty is evil. Jesus never mentions it and Paul explicitly defends the lethal power of the state as divinely granted. (Romans 13:4). As serious as the death is, in the scope of eternity it is much less important than a person's relationship to the only source of Life in Eternity. Therefore, although two Christians may disagree on this issue (and one of them may be the Pope), it is not necessarily "disunity" since the basis of unity in the first place is not total agreement, but shared union with the Father through the Son by the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:14, Titus 3:3-7).

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.

• Does the Paul teach in 1 Corinthians 2:14-16 that everyone who is born of the Spirit, discerns the things of the Spirit such that he can say "we have the mind of Christ"? In the gospel of John (ch.3), Jesus says that no one enters the kingdom unless they have been "born of the Spirit".
• Here's the conundrum: if a person is born of the Spirit, they have been sealed with the indwelling Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14) and hence, the Spirit enables them to "discern the things of the Spirit" so he/she can have "the mind of Christ".
  • If someone says that person doesn't have the Spirit (and they don't) then they are not a Christian and are excused from this entire discussion.
  • If they do have the Spirit, then they can discern the things of the Spirit, regardless of the pedigree of the individual who denies their New Birth.
• Not to be troublesome, but is this kind of discussion really useful? If someone is alive in Christ, they will be increasingly transformed into the likeness of Christ as they cooperate with the "Spirit who is the Lord" (2 Corinthians 3:18). Maturing Christians sound more and more like Jesus and he is not absent from this equation because His Spirit is at work in the lives of those he has called. When I meet someone who knows Jesus, it is plainly evident in the quality and character of their joyful life, regardless of their denomination or secondary and tertiary beliefs. If they don't know Jesus, it doesn't matter what they say they believe, there is no evidence of the transforming power of the Spirit. Those who love Jesus, love His Word. They delight in His voice and they live to encourage and build up his people.

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.

• When you say "it's far too complex, is there ANYTHING in the Bible that you understand? This for me is the biggest issue with your questioning, you presuppose that the Bible is not at all understandable, as though it weren't written by actual human beings, in actual geographic and historical settings, in actual human languages using the normal grammar and ideas of the time. In your characterization, since it is not understandable, all interpretations are suspect, as if people will come to a spectrum of interpretations for a saying like: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life". The reason why John 3:16 is so popular is that it concisely and unambiguously expresses the essential nature of the gospel: relationship with the Father through the Son.
• Does this paragraph present a "straw man"? It sounds like you think other churches don't affirm the core teachings found in the Bible which the catechisms and early creeds affirm. Why do you think that? I've never run into any protestant of any kind who would deny the "Apostles Creed", the Nicene Creed, or the Athanasian Creed.
• Another issue: you've presented a false dichotomy here. It is perfectly possible to affirm the Bible as authoritative and understandable through "proper interpretation" by the average person willing to employ normal interpretive principles AND value and consider the thoughts of other believers both now and through the centuries who have been empowered by the Holy Spirit.

But if you just use your own Bible,

This final paragraph is a collection of logical fallacies:

• appeal to authority "disregarding issues already settled by people much more educated than you, "
• genetic fallacy "who lived much closer to Christ's time,"
• hasty generalization "before denominations were a thing (just the Church & heresies)"
• ad hominem "if you think you have more wisdom than the Church fathers"
• circular argument "and the teaching authority of the Church that is only logical that Christ would leave with us..."

How would you answer to the following questions:

1. Are the centrally important truths necessary for new life in Christ understandable to the average Bible reader (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:3-11)?
   • On what basis do you hold this belief?
2. Do you believe that unity in those centrally important truths is sufficient or does true Christian unity require absolute uniformity on even minor doctrinal points?

 

[martymonster]

The only person who's interpretation is valid, is God's. The only way to know what his interpretation is, is to let him tell you. Let scripture interpret scripture....not men!

 

[Cis.jd]

Why I asked above if the Roman Catholic church even has an infallible interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. What is their systematic approach?

Probably possible literacy of some doctrines?

 

[Rick Otto]

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

Sounds like an invitation to an argument I'm unwilling to attend.
I think your church's conclusion would be that I'm "invincible ignorant", a volley I return with "invincible arrogance".
I speak from experience having attended parochial school for all but three yrs of Grade School & High School.
I vividly remember first grade catechism classes and how completely, wildly counter-intuitive staff routine was with curriculum content. By fourth grade, when they tried to indoctrinate me into transubstantiation, I knew I was going to have to keep my head down until I was old enough to walk away. The cumulative effect of nun & priest antics over the years just piled on to the growing mountain of reasons to doubt the legitimacy of their claims to authority.
Going online in 2000 confirmed my suspicions.
I spent years comparing tradition authoritarians with sola scriptura authoritarians.
Authoritarianism is a huge problem in religion right up their with supremacism.
Authority is a good thing, but too much of a good thing is a bad thing.
So not willing to try and convince, but willing to share insights.

 

[Rick Otto]

Probably possible literacy of some doctrines?

You are generous beyond necessity.
Get a hold of a copy of "Papal Sin - Structures of Deciet" by Garry Wills and read how excess power cause infantilism and how the doctrine of papal infallibility came about.
Mr. Wills is still RC, however.
His book is so reviled by most RCs, that he wrote another book titled, "Why I Am Still Catholic". (lol)

 

[Rick Otto]

Simplicity.

Generally true.

 

[Rick Otto]

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.

We don't need no steenkeen badges! LOL
Right on, brother.

 

[Rick Otto]

***

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."

This works for me.

 

[Rick Otto]

The authority claimed in Unam Sanctum is a travisty.
Especially the last line.

 

[Rick Otto]

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



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.



I side with the authority of Christ.



I know a tree by its fruit.

Thank you for saving me the time.

 

[Cis.jd]

You are generous beyond necessity.
Get a hold of a copy of "Papal Sin - Structures of Deciet" by Garry Wills and read how excess power cause infantilism and how the doctrine of papal infallibility came about.
Mr. Wills is still RC, however.
His book is so reviled by most RCs, that he wrote another book titled, "Why I Am Still Catholic". (lol)

All churches are corrupt with in.

 

[bcbsr]

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?

Well self-proclaimed "Reverand", why do you think that interpreting a book requires some kind of "authority" to tell you what it means, when the point of you reading a book is for you yourself to understand its meaning by its context.

Do you understand what I just wrote? Would I ask you as to what authority do you base your interpretation upon what I wrote? That's just stupid. The Bible is easy enough to understand from its very context. To understand the Bible I suggest they read it rather than deferring to so called "authorities", post-Biblical theologians many of whom don't know what they're talking about.

We are the "Church", we who are believers in Christ. The "Church" is not an exclusive club of celebrity Christians. What Christ left us with is the scriptures and the Holy Spirit.

1Cor 2:
12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.
13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:
16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

And perhaps that explains why there are bizarre interpretations of scriptures.

 

[Rick Otto]

Well self-proclaimed "Reverand", why do you think that interpreting a book requires some kind of "authority" to tell you what it means, when the point of you reading a book is for you yourself to understand its meaning by its context.

Do you understand what I just wrote? Would I ask you as to what authority do you base your interpretation upon what I wrote? That's just stupid. The Bible is easy enough to understand from its very context. To understand the Bible I suggest they read it rather than deferring to so called "authorities", post-Biblical theologians many of whom don't know what they're talking about.

We are the "Church", we who are believers in Christ. The "Church" is not an exclusive club of celebrity Christians. What Christ left us with is the scriptures and the Holy Spirit.

1Cor 2:
12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.
13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:
16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Oh boy. Now you did it.
You told a bald faced truth.
Are you trying to cause trouble?

 

[redleghunter]

Probably possible literacy of some doctrines?

As in?

 

[bcbsr]

Oh boy. Now you did it.
You told a bald faced truth.
Are you trying to cause trouble?

That's the thing. I've been unjustifiably banned twice from these forums for "boldly" telling the truth. And I expect to the banned yet again for doing so in the near future. Seems the nature of these forums that Bereans are not welcomed.