Theological FAQs: Does the Church have to interpret the bible?

Thanks! I’d be interested in what Buggman has to say—no worries about the time. And you are probably not far off in conflating the Pharisees with the Sanhedrin, I *think* at this date the Sanhedrin was mostly Pharisee in its makeup.

Though he will perhaps not appreciate my dragging him into this discussion, I have to give credit to Zionist_Conspirator for this line of thinking. He said (I paraphrase) “How can you Catholics be so upset at Protestants casting off the Catholic magisterium when you did the exact same thing to the Jewish one?”

Very good point. And worth a reasoned response.

However, that apostolic authority, the ability to speak God's word inerrantly, acting as a bulwark against error and apostasy, was to end with the apostles personally chosen by Christ.

Thanks for the reply. I hear what you are saying, but I'm not sure there is any support for your above statement. Where are we told this bulwark against error would end with the Apostles? And what would be the purpose of such a fleeting guarantee?

Of course I agree about wolves and the tares rising within the Church. But does that necessarily imply that the Church as a whole--as a teaching body--will be hopelessly corrupted? Or does it just mean that part of the Church will be corrupted? I think the latter: parts of the Church can certainly go off the rails at times, but Christ guaranteed us that it wouldn't all just spin off into heresy all at once.

And if it helps you to understand "church" when I write "Church", that's fine. I certainly don't mean to be exclusive with it. It's an old Catholic school habit, out of respect for the Holy Bride of Christ. For what it's worth, since presumably you were validly baptized, I am quite confident that said Church with a capital C includes you and most everyone on this thread.

Yeah, sorry about my frequent absences lately. I've been engaged in a very intensive research project. The working title is, "How to be a Husband and a Father." :^P

P-Marlowe's hit the essential points that I would make, but I'll do another read after the Sabbath and add some additional thoughts.

Shalom.

“You are right, therefore, to note the similarity between the Catholic magisterium and the Jewish one. You are wrong, however, in characterizing either as “self-appointed.” They were most certainly not self-appointed. Both were divinely appointed, and both demand the same obedience.”

From the time of the Hasmoneans, before Jesus was born, the Chief Priest and ruler of the Sanhedrin was appointed by the Roman governor. It was a position bought by bribery and intrigue. The position was occupied by Saduccees as were the majority of positions in the Sanhedrin. They were elected by the people.

Thanks for the clarification—I stand corrected about the makeup of the Sanhedrin. I do remember reading in Josephus come to think of it that Annas and Caiaphas were of the Sadducees.

In any case, whoever was sitting there still had the authority, as Our Lord stated.

Paul's statement about the restraint of error I would see more as a warning than a guarantee.
Among the the Corinthian congregation some were forming sects (1 Cor. 1:10-15) and as I already mentioned Jesus’ illustration that would seem to have began while the apostles lived.

The tares were being sown and the true and false were to be indistinguishable for purposes of separation as the darnel and wheat are in their early stages of growth.

Hence the difficulty of answering the question of who or what group(s) really represented biblical Christianity from the death of the apostles till now.

The miraculous gifts, such as raising to life a dead person, ceased with the death of the apostles and John's writing closed the Bible canon.
So in hindsight it would appear that as those apostles died the tares grew along along with the wheat til now when as Jesus said in the explanation of his illustration the separation would take place.

I find the authors' argument singularly unconvincing. No book can be greater than its author--and the Bible cannot be greater than the Church that wrote it.

The church did not write the scriptures...Paul the Apostle preached and wrote this particular book of the scriptures as he was led by Jesus, to and for the churches...Paul's books in particular are addressed to the churches...

The words of God, the scriptures, are the inspired words of God...There is nothing greater on this earth, outside of God, than his written words...His words are Truth...

To the contrary, we are assured that the Church *as a whole* will not be prevailed against.

The 'gates of Hell' will not prevail against the church...

I guess not many of us read that verse literally, but I am one that does...So in the words of your religion, what does that verse mean, exactly???

The church did not write the scriptures...Paul the Apostle preached and wrote this particular book of the scriptures as he was led by Jesus, to and for the churches...Paul's books in particular are addressed to the churches...

It turns out that Paul did not write Hebrews. As well, evidence is mounting that he did not write Timothy, Thessalonians or Ephesians either, since they appear to written well after his martyrdom. So you have the words of either a Bishop of the Church or else somebody else that you elevate above the words of Jesus. Why would you call yourself Christian as opposed to Paulian?

The words of God, the scriptures, are the inspired words of God...There is nothing greater on this earth, outside of God, than his written words...His words are Truth...

You've gotta stop with the equivocating here, Iscool. Are the words inspired, or are they the written words of God? Please be clear.

The miraculous gifts, such as raising to life a dead person, ceased with the death of the apostles and John's writing closed the Bible canon.

Did they? I'm not sure anyone can make that claim so broadly. There are certainly enough legends of those attached to the lives of the saints, and I don't think it's at all wise to categorically exclude them.

Note I am not saying that the books were written corporately when the Church wrote the scriptures—I am saying that the individual authors were members of the Church. Which I think is undeniable.

And Mark wasn’t an Apostle. Luke wasn’t an Apostle. So clearly there is some broader authority going on here than just whatever came from the pen of Apostles directly.

I guess not many of us read that verse literally, but I am one that does...So in the words of your religion, what does that verse mean, exactly???

I interpret it to mean that while heresies will occur and false teachings come about, the Church Herself will be divinely guided and preserved from error forever. That the authority that Christ first invested in Peter and the Apostles continues through the ages in their duly appointed successors. And those successors, as a body, speak with the voice of the Apostolic College and cannot err in matters of doctrine or morals.

Yes, the key word, “legends”. Categorically exclude them?

I would reply that darnel has a propensity for poisonousness so one must be careful what they swallow, even if it is mixed with wheat.

There isn't ONE of the ancient Churches, not the Catholics, not the Orthodox, not the Orientals, whom Reformed Christians can look to and say....yes...those guys kept the faith entire., is there?

I believe most current evangelical/orthodox Reformed scholars would readily admit there are true Christians within all the groups you mentioned. The line between the reformational idea of a "true church" which is flawed (as all churches are)and one destroyed by heresy....is often a hard one to draw, however.

Heresy, according to noted Reformed scholar H. O. J. Brown in his book "Heresies" is a doctrine so important gotten wrong, that it is in danger of destroying the church which believes it. I don't know of any Reformed scholar that would say, something like the error of the perpetual virginity of Mary (not mentioned in the bible) rises to the level of heresy (after all, both Luther and Calvin still believed it...). However, something like the virgin birth (by which we know Jesus is totally unique--the miraculous Son of God by the power of the Holy Spirit from His very conception) would certainly be heresy--as would the current apostasies regarding homosexuality in mainline denominations.

Heresies are wrong beliefs about things SO important, they can actually drag people to hell.

Hence I think it's very possible to have longstanding groups (like the Roman and E. Orthodox Churches) with erronous beliefs all within and around them--but when/where those wrong beliefs are not pushed, a church can have lots of believers as part of her. And if the real definition of "Church" means, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matt. 18:20), then regardless the errors of a particular human organization--the divine body of Christ exists--as it has continually since Pentecost.

The invisible--fully known only to our Lord--understanding of "Church" makes such a concept intelligible. And, to someone who assumes a visible Church standard (that is one human organization...)--I realize, this cannot be understood, let alone accepted.

Anglican Reformer Richard Hooker said as much to radically Reformed Christians of his day--who feared that 1000 years of their ancestors under the erroneous Roman Church must of gone to hell. God, indicated Hooker, is very merciful to the ignorant--provided they trusted and totally relied on His grace, in humility, and not their own merit.

The primary objection of Reformed Christians to Rome and the E. Orthodox is a synergism which sees our justification before God a result of Jesus AND our own works--instead of ALL credit going to the Lord Jesus alone.

Roman Catholics who emphasize and wholly rely on God's grace (even those, who like Augustine, see the the grace of the Holy Spirit working in our own works) I would estimate are safe. Those on the other hand who, like the Pharisees of old, consider themselves worthy recipients of God's rewards....are in serious danger of Hell. Of course hypocrites like that can be found in every denomination--and every congregation. Wheat and tares do grow together in this age.

Post-Shabbat Shalom. I'm going to use P-Marlowe's post as my jumping-off point:

What I see as something fairly typical of Catholic Apologists is that they tend to diminish the role of God and exalt the role of the Roman authorities.

That is indeed a core element of the issue: Are the 66 books of the Bible only Scripture because they were authorized by Rome (which was only one of several Sees originally, btw), or do they have an authority and power that supersedes any endorsement or censure by any body of men?

If the former, it was the rabbis, not any later Christian body, that painstakingly passed down 75% of the Word of God to those of us who enjoy its benefits today, and as such, as P-Marlowe has pointed out, all Catholics must renounce Christ and convert to Orthodox Judaism if indeed, "No book can be greater than its author—and the Bible cannot be greater than the Synagogue that wrote it."

While no Jew would be arrogant enough to claim that the Scriptures are beneath the rabbis, we do indeed often fall into the trap of failing to continually test the traditions handed down to us by the iron yardstick of the Bible. Indeed, in Judaism it is a big no-no to ever disagree with one's rabbi, even centuries later. This is why Yeshua enjoins us,

But don’t you be called ‘Rabbi,’ for one is your Rabbi, the Messiah, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Messiah. (Mat. 23:8-10)

The problem is not with the terms, but with the attitude: We must not let anyone be a gate between us and God, for He has given us only one Gate, nor are we to turn in our brains at the door of any earthly body, no matter how exalted; the Holy One holds us responsible for receiving worthy teaching with an open mind, but searching the Scriptures daily to see if what we are taught is so (Acts 17:11).

In short, then, I will accept the authority of the Magisterium, which gave me perhaps 25% of Scripture even by its own claims, when the Magisterium accepts the authority of the rabbis, who gave us the other 75%. And I will accept the authority of the rabbis as absolute on the day when they accept the authority of the Incarnate Word as absolute.

In the meantime, I sit at the feet of one Master, happy to enjoy the wisdom and insight of His older students on all sides, but ultimately responsible to follow Him above all.

...and the Jews had their own "Magisterium" which consisted of the Pharisees, who had taken upon themselves the job of declaring the meaning of the scriptures...

That's not entirely true. The Jewish "Magisterium" of the 1st Century was the Sanhedrin, which did have many Pharisees on it, but which was dominated by the Sadducees more often than not. The popularity that the Pharisees enjoyed in Judaism had to do with the fact that they really were the experts of the time in the Torah, even more so than the then-existent priesthood, and they really did (mostly) try to live holy lives set apart for God. (Pharisee, P'rush in the Hebrew, means "Separated One.")

Yeshua's issue was that as the Pharisees had become popular, they had attracted hypocrites who saw pretension to holiness as an avenue to prestige, wealth, and power, especially in the Jerusalem leadership. This is a problem that is actually condemned in the Talmud itself--in other words, Pharisees like Rabban Gameliel (Paul's teacher) were aware of the problem and trying to uproot it. Nevertheless, Yeshua's teachings, life, and associations in the New Testament are so similar to Pharisaic Judaism that many Jews today are arguing that He was actually a disciple of Rabbi Hillel (Gameliel's grandfather).

Having studied, for however short a time, the actual writings of the Pharisees, who became Orthodox Judaism, I have developed a great admiration of their ideals, their fidelity to Scripture, and their insights. Without the Pharisees, there would be no Jews today, and God's promises would have failed. (I'm not giving them credit over the Holy One; I am saying the Holy One acted through them to keep His promises.) Without the Pharisees, we would have no Tanakh, or Old Testament, if you prefer, since they are the ones who preserved the Prophets over the objections of the ruling Sadducees. Without the Pharisees, we would have no doctrine of the Resurrection, no synagogue structure and therefore no church structure (the latter having borrowed heavily from the former), very little knowledge of our Lord's world and time (Josephus, for example, was a Pharisee), and we would have missed out on a thousand other blessings.

But that doesn't mean that I elevate them above the words of the Master. And neither should anyone else so elevate their teachers, no matter what authority they claim.

Shalom.