Posted on 05/09/2011 10:59:18 AM PDT by Bokababe
.....The guidelines I used in interpreting Scripture seemed simple enough: When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense. I believed that those who were truly faithful and honest in following this principle would achieve Christian unity.
To my surprise, this “common sense” approach led not to increased Christian clarity and unity, but rather to a spiritual free-for-all!
Those who most strongly adhered to believing “only the Bible” tended to become the, most factious, divisive, and combative of Christians-perhaps unintentionally. In fact, it seemed to me that the more one held to the Bible as the only source of spiritual authority, the more factious and sectarian one became. We would even argue heatedly over verses on love! Within my circle of Bible-believing friends, I witnessed a mini-explosion of sects and schismatic movements, each claiming to be “true to the Bible” and each in bitter conflict with the others. Serious conflict arose over every issue imaginable: charismatic gifts, interpretation of prophecy, the proper way to worship, communion, Church government, discipleship, discipline in the Church, morality, accountability, evangelism, social action, the relationship of faith and works, the role of women, and ecumenism. The list is endless. In fact any issue at all could-and often did-cause Christians to part ways.....
(Excerpt) Read more at journeytoorthodoxy.com ...
Then the writings which emanated from them became adhered to because of the authority attached.
The early church fathers (though stalwarts) had no such authority. Their writings (though wise in so many respects) do not carry the weight of Scripture.
“So the Apostles were “temps”? “
I don’t mean to be perjorative. I suppose they were temps in one sense of the word. You could call Moses a “temp,” in that case, too. The only way I can listen to Moses today is to read what he wrote. Ultimately, though, it was what God wrote, as it was inspired. Similarly with the apostles.
Private interpretation, while very common in American Protestant churches, is NOT inimical to the Protestant Reformation, or to Bible-is-the-final-authority(but not the only authority...) Protestant churches. The concept of “sola scriptura” is NOT properly understood as the “bible alone has any authority,” which leads to the kind of chaotic total individualism described in the article.
As proof that “sola scriptura” (as originally understood) does NOT mean private interpretation: The magisterial Protestants at least (Lutherans, Anglicans and Presbyterians), every one of them relied on CONFESSIONS....which describe, usually in detail, what that Church AS A BODY believes Scripture says, NOT the free-for-all the author describes (with some accuracy, I admit) found in the typical “bible alone” evangelical Church today.
One principle though, that came out of the Reformation, is that of the “perspicuity of Scripture” a phrase which simply means (counter VERY much to post-modernist thinking), CLARITY....that is that God wrote the bible in common language, and, your average person CAN understand basic, fundamental doctrines from scripture. This is why, in spite of what looks like an external chaos of doctrines, Protestant evangelical Churches tend to agree on at least 95% to 98% of doctrines....very much like the magisterial creeds of the Lutherans, Reformed, and Anglican also agree on at least 95%.
NOW, many, especially the very committed, will find in that 2% to 5% difference, the difference between heresy and life....however the fact remains that, amidst all (small “o”) orthodox Protestants, there is probably no more (and perhaps LESS) diversity of doctrine than amidst those within Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic Churches.
The PRIMARY reason for the plurality of Churches today is simply RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, which historically (until really the advent of America), did not exist in Western Europe or the Eastern Orthodox countries—which therefore allowed those bodies to have a monopoly on Christian faith.
Christ gives that to all of them in Matthew 18:18. Peter is still not the supreme. What about that don’t you understand?
Christ did not mean to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one upon whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not that of Peter, was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed (and read what he was being blamed for - a thing which could not have happened if Christ meant that Peter was absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here, or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter would have infallible successors who would be the vicegerents of Christ and the head of the church. The book of Timothy lays out the qualifications for a Bishop/Pastor and that is penned by Paul and not Peter. You would think that something that important would come from the *leader* of the NT church but it did not unless you consider Paul to be that leader. The Bible is completely silent about the supreme authority of Peter which is a horrible thing for it to be silent about don’t you think?
This is exactly right--an Apostolic faith is ultimately a biblical faith--as understood by the Church broadly through time...
This idea, that the bible must be interpreted as a body (not sitting alone in your room...)--is what prevents (more) schism, and also the reason behind the great Protestant confessions.
I really don't understand why the E. Orthodox and Roman Churches are not wary of the extra-biblical deposits of tradition that can (and do...very much so) acrue over time, when a human authority-on-earth is given the full and final authority over and above God's Word.
In fear of subjective interpretation by the individual, they trade a subjective interpretation by a group.
Many thanks.
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!
Just wait. If this thread goes long enough, you will see references to the fag priest scandals.
It's the FreeRepublic Template.
Is that your private interpretation?
Well, given that Christ’s body existed throughout human history, antedating his incarnation, then the meaning of Christ’s body being the church is probably not what the author is referring to.
They're based on the straighforward meaning of the text without twisting and turning to fit some pre-conceived idea.
Only mankind is foolish enough and arrogant enough to think that he needs to improve on God’s word or to judge the content thereof
So the answer is "yes".
And, if it adheres to the Scripture, where is the fault?
If its adherence is affirmed by private interpretation, the argument is circular.
No rebuttal is offered to this interpretation, only a laughable implication that it is only one person's interpretation, even though that is fallacious.
Not much credibility in your argument. Reason does not seem to rank highly with you.
Good luck with the RCC patrols though, it seems you've already attracted some detractors. I think I'll just sit over here and wonder how long it will be before the Orthodox Christians are accused of being heretics like the Protestants and Evangelicals.
Let us remember:
“As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and a rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed.” (Romans 9:33)
“And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:4)
A private interpretation is still a private interpretation, no matter how many individuals' private interpretations concur.
I see.
I am just trying to find out how one who interprets Scripture privately affirms that interpretation. I mean, is it a feeling? A consensus among private interpreters? What?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.