[Akoue]

I'm never sure what to make of the idea that Scripture interprets itself. Given the fact that intellectually honest, faith-filled, and diligent people come to divergent understandings (we don't have to call them "interpretations" if that term gives offense to some) of Scripture, it seems we are all obligated to support our claims to find particular truths affirmed in Scripture with appeal to something--if not Papal authority, then reasoned argument, or textual analysis... something, anyway, other than still more verses of Scripture the meaning of which can in turn be contested. There is no good reason I can see to suppose that disagreement over the meaning of Scripture emerges only where one or more of the parties to the disagreement are cognitively or spiritually deficient. In other words, there is genuine and honest disagreement. Each of us has to work to mitigate our own propensity to misunderstand God's word, and we do this in different ways. A rigorous discussion of the ways in which we do this is, I think, profitable.

[Tj3]

I'm never sure what to make of the idea that Scripture interprets itself.

From the Bible.

Given the fact that intellectually honest, faith-filled, and diligent people come to divergent understandings (we don't have to call them "interpretations" if that term gives offense to some) of Scripture, it seems we are all obligated to support our claims to find particular truths affirmed in Scripture with appeal to something--if not Papal authority, then reasoned argument, or textual analysis... something, anyway, other than still more verses of Scripture the meaning of which can in turn be contested.

Of course the opinions of men can always vary and can always be contested. That is why scripture says that it is not to be interpreted by any man.

[Akoue]

Of course the opinions of men can always vary and can always be contested. That is why scripture says that it is not to be interpreted by any man.

Okay, fair enough. But that's who's reading it, us, eminently fallible men and women. I completely agree with you that the Bible does not make mistakes; but we do all the time. And so what do we, any of us, do when we come to an honest parting of the ways regarding the meaning of some passage or passages of Scripture? We've done our homework, we're making an honest and forthright effort to understand, and yet we come up with different answers? Do we all just go our own separate ways? That doesn't seem right.

Now I don't mean to suggest that the understanding of Scripture should be a matter of mere consensus: majorities can err just as individuals can. So, as a practical matter, to what do we appeal, if anything, when two or more people come to an honest parting of the ways over the meaning of Scripture? There must be some means by which we can discern the truth from the error. (Of course, the really tricky case is when both, or all, participants to the disagreement are wrong but none knows it).

I, for one, am interested to hear anyone's thoughts on this.

[arcura]

Don't make me laugh.
It is OBVIOUS that YOU are the one that interprets Scripture. Your many errors prove that.

[Tj3]

Don't make me laugh.
It is OBVIOUS that YOU are the one that interprets Scripture. Your many errors prove that.

I see - rather than deal with the issue, you attack the person.

[Tj3]

Okay, fair enough. But that's who's reading it, us, eminently fallible men and women. I completely agree with you that the Bible does not make mistakes; but we do all the time. And so what do we, any of us, do when we come to an honest parting of the ways regarding the meaning of some passage or passages of Scripture? We've done our homework, we're making an honest and forthright effort to understand, and yet we come up with different answers? Do we all just go our own separate ways? That doesn't seem right.

That is when those who truly desire truth, put aside personal prejudices, put aside their own long held belifs, decide that their denominational distinctives will be submitted to God's word, and then we honestly and with all sincerity with a desire to find truth, see what God's word says, not our opinions.

After all, why do you think that God told us that NO man is to interpret the Bible? Did God err? Or did He mean what He said? Are we to say that He did not understand, and did not know what He was talking about, or do we take Him at His word?

[De Maria]

So it is akin to me declaring myself as infallible. Okay. I understand now.

Similar but not exact. The Word of God says:

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The Church accepts this charism and believes that she can only and ever uphold the truth of Jesus Christ.

The Word of God also says:

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The Church believes this is the self same charism protecting her from the snares of Satan.

We believe the promises of Christ.

[De Maria]

That is when those who truly desire truth, put aside personal prejudices, put aside their own long held belifs, decide that their denominational distinctives will be submitted to God's word, and then we honestly and with all sincerity with a desire to find truth, see what God's word says, not our opinions.....

OK. You first. :)

[De Maria]

My beliefs come from an infallible and inerrant source.

Certainly God and His Word are inerrant. But human beings are fallible and error prone. God didn't design His system so that His message could be lost by the fallible and error prone. It would negate His grace of inerrancy. In order for the Bible's grace of infallibility to be truly useful, there must exist an infallible interpreter. Therefore, God gave His Church the charism of infallibility. So that His message wouldn't be lost.

[Akoue]

That is when those who truly desire truth, put aside personal prejudices, put aside their own long held belifs, decide that their denominational distinctives will be submitted to God's word, and then we honestly and with all sincerity with a desire to find truth, see what God's word says, not our opinions.

Afterall, why do you think that God told us that NO man is to interpret the Bible? Did God err? Or did He mean what He said? Are we to say that He did not understand, and did not know what He was talking about, or do we take Him at His word?

Again, I think what you say is fair enough. I just don't know what kind of a prescription it is. People can put aside lots of things, but there's still going to be disagreement. Say we set aside our denominational preferences and prejudices; say, also, that we carry-on in good faith, in a spirit of genuine humility. We are still going to disagree. After all, not all disagreement is the result of people being insincere or brainwashed by a denomination or ideology (and there is no one who is entirely free from, nor immune to prejudice of one sort or another): It just strikes me as uncharitable, even unkind, to believe that the only reason people understand Scripture differently is that they are in the grip of an ideology, or are mendacious, or insincere, etc. The most well-intentioned people, moved by the right impulses and instincts, can read Scripture differently. The problem, as we agree, isn't with Scripture; it's with us. And this is why the question stays with me: What then? Where do we go from there? How do we sort through the differences?

I hope I expressed the concern in a way that makes sense.

[De Maria]

Again, I think what you say is fair enough. I just don't know what kind of a prescription it is. People can put aside lots of things, but there's still going to be disagreement. Say we set aside our denominational preferences and prejudices; say, also, that we carry-on in good faith, in a spirit of genuine humility. We are still going to disagree. After all, not all disagreement is the result of people being insincere or brainwashed by a denomination or ideology (and there is no one who is entirely free from, nor immune to prejudice of one sort or another): It just strikes me as uncharitable, even unkind, to believe that the only reason people understand Scripture differently is that they are in the grip of an ideology, or are mendacious, or insincere, etc. The most well-intentioned people, moved by the right impulses and instincts, can read Scripture differently. The problem, as we agree, isn't with Scripture; it's with us. And this is why the question stays with me: What then? Where do we go from there? How do we sort through the differences?

I hope I expressed the concern in a way that makes sense.

The Word of God answers the question:

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

This has happened throughout Christian history. The Arian heresy is a wonderful example. Who declared Arius a heretic. The Church.

But before that happened, first Athanasius and Arius debated. They both used Scripture to support their positions. But Athanasius also had Tradition on his side. Arius did not. The Church then pronounced Arius a heretic:

The Council interrogated Arius using Scripture, only to find that he had a new way of interpreting every verse they brought before him. Finally, they used the argument that Arius' view had to be wrong because it was new. Athanasius says, "But concerning matters of faith, they [the bishops assembled at Nicea] did not write: 'It has been decided,' but 'Thus the Catholic Church believes.' And thereupon confessed how they believed. This they did to show that their judgement was not of more recent origin, but was in fact of Apostolic times..." (Volume 1, Faith of the Early Fathers, p338). In this regard also, Athanasius askes rhetorically, "... how many fathers [in other words, the writings of the early Christians] can you cite for your phrases?" (Ibid, p325)
The Council of Nicea

[arcura]

Tj3,
Gee whiz Tom I did not intend to attack you and don't think I did, but if you think so I apologize.
I thought that I was just reminding you of the errors I believe you made just like you pointing out errors you believe I made.
So please accept my apology.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Tj3]

Tj3,
Gee whiz Tom I did not intend to attack you and don't think I did, but if you think so I apologize.
I thought that I was just reminding you of the errors I believe you made just like you pointing out errors you believe I made.
So please accept my apology.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, pointing out errors would require that you provide scripture and then discuss in a respectful manner. I would look forward to that.

[Tj3]

Similar but not exact. The Word of God says:

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The Church accepts this charism and believes that she can only and ever uphold the truth of Jesus Christ.

The church of the living God is the body of ALL believers, not a denomination.

The Word of God also says:

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The Church believes this is the self same charism protecting her from the snares of Satan.

The church of the living God is the body of ALL believers, not a denomination.

1 Cor 12:26-27
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
NKJV

[Tj3]

Certainly God and His Word are inerrant. But human beings are fallible and error prone. God didn't design His system so that His message could be lost by the fallible and error prone. It would negate His grace of inerrancy. In order for the Bible's grace of infallibility to be truly useful, there must exist an infallible interpreter.

Right. The Holy Spirit.

John 14:15-18
15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
NKJV

[Tj3]

The problem, as we agree, isn't with Scripture; it's with us. And this is why the question stays with me: What then? Where do we go from there? How do we sort through the differences?

The problem is with us. Look around at the messages. We find people constantly referring to their own interpretations, their pastor, their denomination, their church, extra-Biblical sources, opinions.

Any doubt as to why we have variant views?

[De Maria]

Right. The Holy Spirit.

John 14:15-18
15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
NKJV

Like you said in the other message to Akoue. Look at us. I claim the Holy Spirit as well as you? Yet WE CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.

So, as in the Arius/Athanasius dispute, there is one Judge which Jesus appointed to resolve Christian dispute:

Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Therefore, the Church must be a living authority which one can locate and which has the authority to adjudicate the dispute.

Sincerely,

[De Maria]

The problem is with us. Look around at the messages. We find people constantly referring to their own interpretations, their pastor, their denomination, their church, extra-Biblical sources, opinions.

Any doubt as to why we have variant views?

And that is the question which remains unanswered in the Scripture and Tradition Thread:

This is good, it speaks to the second view of the OP. So, if I may, I'd like to ask you to say a little bit about how you might apprach the question I asked Fred:

You and I are intellectually honest, faith-filled, diligent people who sit down together and talk about a passage of Scripture. And we find ourselves in disagreement over what it says. Each of us understands it differently. We talk it through, each of us explains why we understand it the way we do, and still we find ourselves understanding it differently. What, if anything, do we do then to sort out the disagreement? Since it is the word of God we know that it can't be saying two conflicting things. And yet here we are with two conflicting understandings of what it says. What resource do you and I have--assuming that neither of us is inclined to appeal to Tradition in the sense of the first view--for figuring out whether one of us is right and the other wrong, or whether we're both mistaken?

I'd appreciate any thoughts you care to offer on this.

So as not to derail this thread, please respond to it there if you so desire:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post1425642

Sincerely,

[Tj3]

Like you said in the other message to Akoue. Look at us. I claim the Holy Spirit as well as you? Yet WE CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.

Two things. With all due respect (and this is not aimed at you personally), but claiming the Holy Spirit is not the same as having it, and secondly just having the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as allowing the Holy Spirit to speak to us through His word without adding man's interpretation to it.

[Akoue]

Two things. With all due respect (and this is not aimed at you personally), but claiming the Holy Spirit is not the same as having it,

I think we can all agree on that.

and secondly just having the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as allowing the Holy Spirit to speak to us through His word without adding man's interpretation to it

This would make for an interesting thread topic.