Replies

I think my statements on this approach could have been more clear, because right now RnMomof7 is absolutely convinced I don't believe in absolute truth (I do, I just observe that even the most naked fact requires that we interpret it through the lens of our experiences.). But ultimately, my approach is rooted in a disbelief in the complete perspecuity of the Scriptures (rather, believing that all things pertaining to salvation are clearly found within; the rest is subject to interpretation - by the Magisterium.

Ask the pastor Jude.

If you can not trust your own reading of the word, how do you know that you can trust your judgment in who you have interpret it for you?

Perhaps the Watchtower would be good . You just can not be sure can you, because your own judgment is so clouded. Perhaps prayer for discernment would help.

If you can not trust your own reading of the word, how do you know that you can trust your judgment in who you have interpret it for you?

The Church - it is the pillar and support of the truth. That is why God gave us Presbyters - who have been subject to ordination by the legitimate Church authorities - so that we can discern orthodox from heterodox. That's why God gave us an entire 2000 years worth of history where leaders - Presbyters and Bishops all - wrestled with the text, and gave us the authoritative understanding.

For instance - I know the Trinity is correct, and not just based on out-of-context proof-texts, because of the Nicene Creed; the product of the near-unanimous judgment of all the Bishops of the Church around 325 AD. Because I know the Church Jesus Christ founded would never fall into complete apostasy, I can rest secure that the near-unanimous judgment of the Church on an issue of such grave importance is more likely to be correct than any exegesis I can come up with on my own. My own exegesis is valuble when it is in conformance with the historical viewpoint of Christianity. When it is new and novel, it is immediately suspect.

Perhaps the Watchtower would be good .

No need to be snarky - as though I would listen to a group of Russellites who arose in the 1800's in the Northeastern United States. Any theology that traces its origin to the nineteenth century United States - or the twenty-first century, for that matter - is immediately suspect.

Personally I find jude's statement a little strange coming from a Protestant. Catholics base their interpretation upon what comes from the Church as the Church interprets it. Protestants review the different councils and creeds, compare it with the scriptures and then see if they agree with it or not based upon how God speaks to their hearts. The Protestant view puts more responsibility upon the believer to study the word and show themselves approved.

We all harbor prejudices but frankly that is not an excuse. Saying you agree with what is written in councils and creeds can be dangerous and, frankly, very Catholic in nature. How does one know a council didn't harbor prejudices and that you are supporting those prejudices?

I would simply point to those in the early church who were being swayed by the Jews who said it was wrong to eat unclean animals. Even though Paul was young in the church and certainly not a raking member he found it necessary to stand up to such people as Peter, James and John by going back to the scriptures and reason. It set them on the right course.

To hide behind councils and creeds is not the intent of Protestantism. Councils and creeds only serve as guidelines which, if found untrue, should be tossed. The only thing we know is true is God's word. Protestantism correctly recognize everyone is a priest before God accountable for their OWN actions.