What is biblical authority...?

[GDL]

The church reader is not an actor.

But he certainly must be a singer to some degree.

Interesting.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

But he certainly must be a singer to some degree.

Interesting.

At the Greek seminary there is a chanting class each semester for 4 years since about 90% of any given service is chanted.

 

[GDL]

At the Greek seminary there is a chanting class each semester for 4 years since about 90% of any given service is chanted.

Might have helped my singing voice, which has always seemed beyond help. Can't think of any better thing to be singing/chanting. Kind of like singing the Psalms.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Some people don’t get it - God puts the responsibility on each individual believer to study the scriptures for themselves and determine the truth - not some priest, church, or denomination.

He gives us the Holy Spirit to lead us to the truth as we study scripture diligently.

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Who is Jesus speaking to here?

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew YOURSELF approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, RIGHTLY dividing the word of truth.

Who is St. Paul talking to here?

Scripture is the sole arbiter of truth.

2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

And, again, who is St. Paul talking to here?

You've put "the individual"--that is each and every Christian person--as the direct audience of what is being said, but in the Scripture you have provided that isn't the context.

Our Lord is speaking first and foremost to His apostles, and thus it is in this that it refers to the Church collectively, not to the Christian individually.

The Apostle is writing to his protege, St. Timothy, a pastor called and ordained to preach the Gospel and to minister to the needs of the Faithful--the Apostle therefore gives pastoral advice to his spiritual son on how to be a minister of Word and Sacrament as a faithful pastor.

And this is why each individual trying to figure out what the Bible means for themselves doesn't work.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[chad kincham]

Who is Jesus speaking to here?



Who is St. Paul talking to here?



And, again, who is St. Paul talking to here?

You've put "the individual"--that is each and every Christian person--as the direct audience of what is being said, but in the Scripture you have provided that isn't the context.

Our Lord is speaking first and foremost to His apostles, and thus it is in this that it refers to the Church collectively, not to the Christian individually.

The Apostle is writing to his protege, St. Timothy, a pastor called and ordained to preach the Gospel and to minister to the needs of the Faithful--the Apostle therefore gives pastoral advice to his spiritual son on how to be a minister of Word and Sacrament as a faithful pastor.

And this is why each individual trying to figure out what the Bible means for themselves doesn't work.

-CryptoLutheran

The NT scriptures apply to every believer, not just the apostles.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The NT scriptures apply to every believer, not just the apostles.

"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well." - Romans 16:1-2

So Paul is telling you, you personally, to receive St. Phoebe when she arrived in Rome from Cenchreae two thousand years ago?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GDL]

So Paul is telling you, you personally, to receive St. Phoebe when she arrived in Rome from Cenchreae two thousand years ago?

-CryptoLutheran

Isn't there a difference between being addressed personally and how such address might be applicable to others? Sure, some may be tough to apply more generally, but don't you think we can take this too far?

I think I saw you address Paul and Timothy, earlier. Cannot Paul's command to Timothy to be diligent to show oneself approved by God by cutting the word of truth in a straight line (interpreting and teaching it correctly) have a wider applicability than just Timothy? It's certainly applicable to other pastors and teachers. Why not every Christian who studies and discusses Scripture? And why would it not be applicable to every Christian to be evaluating to varying degrees what some "pastors and teachers" are teaching - kind of like the Bereans identified in Scripture?

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Isn't there a difference between being addressed personally and how such address might be applicable to others? Sure, some may be tough to apply more generally, but don't you think we can take this too far?

I think I saw you address Paul and Timothy, earlier. Cannot Paul's command to Timothy to be diligent to show oneself approved by God by cutting the word of truth in a straight line (interpreting and teaching it correctly) have a wider applicability than just Timothy? It's certainly applicable to other pastors and teachers. Why not every Christian who studies and discusses Scripture? And why would it not be applicable to every Christian to be evaluating to varying degrees what some "pastors and teachers" are teaching - kind of like the Bereans identified in Scripture?

In one sense you are right, we need to be aware of what is being taught. However, I think it becomes dangerous for us to assume duties that are above our training and vocation.

The concern here is that we could very easily give spiritually dangerous advice to someone else and we see it all the time here on CF. One, in regards to the Bereans, this was a synagogue of Jews who knew the Hebrew Scriptures inside and out collectively. They were located in Macedonia and probably knew Greek philosophy. So this is a very educated GROUP that discussed things amongst themselves as Paul was meeting with them. Today, we have a LOT of people who have a Bible in one hand and The Purpose Driven Life in the other and think they know it all on their own.

Just to give you an example, there is a post where someone is trying to teach that the "bible of God" in Hebrews 4:12 and contrasting it to the 2 Corinthians passage about the "letter that kills". The two passages have nothing to do with each other and the passage in Hebrews is "Logos tou theou", Word of God, reflective of the Logos in John, i.e. Jesus. So they are mixing two unrelated passages and re-translated the Greek to suit their own interpretation.

Now it is one thing if we, as members of a church body, argue about various points in Scripture. ViaCrucis and I could argue for days about free will vs Bondage of the Will that would make most heads spin around here, but we both know how we are going about things because we are knowledgeable about the topic. Of course, as Luther said, theology is best discussed over beer. We might not resolve that age old discussion but we'll have a great time doing it! It is completely another thing when we see others coming up with some eisigesis or interpretation that makes absolutely no sense.

 

[GDL]

In one sense you are right, we need to be aware of what is being taught. However, I think it becomes dangerous for us to assume duties that are above our training and vocation.

Well stated. In one pass, I have no disagreement that seems worth a mention. In fact I rather enjoyed a few of your comments, for example Bible & Purpose Driven Life, and Luther and the beer. Couldn't agree more.

I think you picked up my point, and your comments re: the Berean group is agreed and well-received. Even then we can apply the lesson that teachers should be checked by those capable.

One note about the "spiritual advice" coupled with the eisegesis: I'm afraid more than some from group to group would say the other group, no matter what one it is, is surely guilty of such.

I may have responded to the "letter kills" post myself, assuming we speak of the same one. Or, by that point I may have just walked away knowing there was nothing I could do or say to bring exegesis into play with someone who wants to override the authority of Scripture like that.

Thanks for the comments.

 

[GDL]

Just to give you an example, there is a post where someone is trying to teach that the "bible of God" in Hebrews 4:12 and contrasting it to the 2 Corinthians passage about the "letter that kills".

Just saw this thread and your answer. I was thinking of another similar statement in another thread.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Isn't there a difference between being addressed personally and how such address might be applicable to others? Sure, some may be tough to apply more generally, but don't you think we can take this too far?

I think applicability is important, the Scriptures are applicable to us, they are for us. But application follows context. That is, what is being said, to whom, and for what reason--then we can see how it applies.

I think I saw you address Paul and Timothy, earlier. Cannot Paul's command to Timothy to be diligent to show oneself approved by God by cutting the word of truth in a straight line (interpreting and teaching it correctly) have a wider applicability than just Timothy? It's certainly applicable to other pastors and teachers.

That's a perfect example what I mean actually. The applicability here is in the context of the office and ministry of the Keys, i.e. the pastorate. Paul tells Timothy to "preach the Gospel in and out of season", that is pastoral instruction, from one pastor to another. Timothy, as a bishop--a pastor--was called to the ministry of Word and Sacrament, and thus preaching the Gospel is his vocation. Not that lay Christians can't preach the Gospel obviously, the proclamation of the Gospel is a universal thing for the Church; but it is the pastor's specific calling to be a preacher of the Gospel for the benefit of the body. That is why we come together, to hear and receive God's word. The duty of the pastor is to be the minister of Word and Sacrament in the context of the Church.

Why not every Christian who studies and discusses Scripture? And why would it not be applicable to every Christian to be evaluating to varying degrees what some "pastors and teachers" are teaching - kind of like the Bereans identified in Scripture?

We should. But Paul's point to Timothy is for him to be a faithful minister of the Gospel, to bear God's Word and Sacraments to the Faithful under his care.

Pastors are held accountable to the Church, or they should be; which is why in many ecclesiastical structures pastors/priests are held accountable to their parishioners as well as accountable to more senior clerics or governing bodies.

There are clearly two equally problematic pendulum extremes we can descend into that are very bad:

1) Where a "church leader" is given entirely too much power and authority, and is not held accountable to the Church, including the historic teaching and practice of the Church or to the Faithful on the whole. And they should be, indeed they must be. To preach heresy or to violate the trust between pastor and people is a grave problem that needs to be able to be addressed, rectified, and to bring discipline to such as these.

2) Where the individual Christian believes him or herself to be his or her own pope, and thus believe that whatever they believe the Bible says must be true; and thus they ignore the teaching of Scripture and the faithful preaching of the Church and insist on their own way. And so they prefer their own private interpretations and regard their personal opinions as though they were Christian dogma. Some go so far as to attribute their personal opinions and interpretations to the direct work of the Holy Spirit. In this way they make themselves their own personal pope, and often worse than that because they--at least implicitly--insist on the infallibility of their own pronouncements. So that any idle word that proceeds from their lips, or any stray thought in their minds, is held to be the infallible work of the Spirit in themselves. Such make themselves not only their own pope, but they make themselves their own church--a church of one.

So whether Authoritarianism or Egopapism, great error and trouble arises.

This is why it is essential for us to understand that the Church is a community of Faithful Christians, in which some have been called to the vocation of pastor, to minister Word and Sacrament; such duly appointed deputies of the Church's evangelical and ministerial mission are called and ordained for the sake of good order, and the Faithful should be able to avail themselves to these things. Because if the pastor is doing as they ought, then what they are preaching is in keeping with Scripture and two millennia of Christian teaching; and they are held accountable so as to hold their feet to the fire. So that rogue pastors do not endanger the spiritual life--or even the physical and mental life--of the Faithful. Wolves in sheep's clothing have no place here.

Sometimes pastors error, and thus need correction.
Sometimes laypersons error, and thus need correction.

This correction comes not from any one person claiming authority, but rather comes through the integrated whole of the people of faith--the Christian Church. Through the faithfully received faith, faithful adherence to the Scriptures, and our bold confession in the Creeds.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GDL]

Sometimes pastors error, and thus need correction.
Sometimes laypersons error, and thus need correction.

For the most part, we are in agreement. Does the Pope error and need correction?

There are always and most certainly extremes. Neither extreme is correct.

Context is always key. Applicability must not be in the extremes.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

For the most part, we are in agreement. Does the Pope error and need correction?

There are always and most certainly extremes. Neither extreme is correct.

Context is always key. Applicability must not be in the extremes.

Coming from the Eastern Orthodox side, yes! We've only been trying to correct the Popes for almost a thousand years, from 1054

 

[GDL]

Coming from the Eastern Orthodox side, yes! We've only been trying to correct the Popes for almost a thousand years, from 1054

Wondered what you'd do with that one. Nice response!

 

[GreekOrthodox]

In all seriousness, even clergy can make anything from minor mistakes, such as a Lutheran pastor referring to candelabra as "menorahs" for one sermon, to the arch-heretic Nestorius who was the Archbishop of Constantinople.

 

[ViaCrucis]

For the most part, we are in agreement. Does the Pope error and need correction?

There are always and most certainly extremes. Neither extreme is correct.

Context is always key. Applicability must not be in the extremes.

I'm Lutheran, so yes, I do think the Pope errors and needs correction. That's part of the reason why Lutherans and Rome aren't in communion.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Saint Steven]

... Just to give you an example, there is a post where someone is trying to teach that the "bible of God" in Hebrews 4:12 and contrasting it to the 2 Corinthians passage about the "letter that kills". The two passages have nothing to do with each other and the passage in Hebrews is "Logos tou theou", Word of God, reflective of the Logos in John, i.e. Jesus. So they are mixing two unrelated passages and re-translated the Greek to suit their own interpretation. ...

That's a very interesting point. (the word of God = Jesus)
I certainly agree that it is not a reference to the NT canon which wasn't assembled/approved until the 4th century.

Not sure if it is a translation issue, but the NIV uses the pronoun "it" in reference to "the word of God". What do you make of that?


Hebrews 4:12-13 NIV
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

That's a very interesting point. (the word of God = Jesus)
I certainly agree that it is not a reference to the NT canon which wasn't assembled/approved until the 4th century.

Not sure if it is a translation issue, but the NIV uses the pronoun "it" in reference to "the word of God". What do you make of that?


Hebrews 4:12-13 NIV
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Isn't that a matter of simply having to do things like follow grammar rules while trying to make a mainstream translation as far as making a pronoun to fit Logos. Basically you could render it He, but that is basically making a kind of interpretation and canonizing it rather than just leaving it as it is and allowing the reader to maybe make the connection without any coaxing etc.

It's a little like when parthenos / virgin was used for the word almah / maid/ young woman in the famous Isaiah Immanuel prophesy. That sort of thing is done, and likely by the hand of Providence etc. but its very controversial (non messianic Jews are still complaining about the Septuagint! )even though that sort of thing occasionally occurs at different times in scripture, most notably Daniel's prophetic reinterpretation of the Jeremiah prophesy of "70" (assumed years), as 70 x7 aka weeks.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

That's a very interesting point. (the word of God = Jesus)
I certainly agree that it is not a reference to the NT canon which wasn't assembled/approved until the 4th century.

Not sure if it is a translation issue, but the NIV uses the pronoun "it" in reference to "the word of God". What do you make of that?


Hebrews 4:12-13 NIV
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

So in the Greek ending of verse 12, "καὶ κριτικὸς ἐνθυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοιῶν καρδίας", literally, "and judges thoughts and intentions of heart". So using "it" to refer back to "logos to Theou", word of God, works grammatically in English. Since Paul (at least Orthodox refer to the author of Hebrews as Paul), is using Logos, I'm making the assumption that the author is intending the usage of Logos as a philosophical term of "rational thought" as opposed to "lexi" which is just simply "a word", which is why the Logos is alive and active.

 

[Saint Steven]

Isn't that a matter of simply having to do things like follow grammar rules while trying to make a mainstream translation as far as making a pronoun to fit Logos. Basically you could render it He, but that is basically making a kind of interpretation and canonizing it rather than just leaving it as it is and allowing the reader to maybe make the connection without any coaxing etc.

I'm remembering something now about there being no pronouns in the NT Greek. So, they need to choose one when needed in the translation. Unfortunately, in this case it makes a thing out of a person. Which seems to me to be MORE misleading than using a generic "he". The proof is in the pudding. What is the standard interpretation? That this is a reference to the canon. (wrong)