The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Among Protestants it is generally accepted that the central doctrines of historic Christianity are universally acknowledged by the body of Christ worldwide. But this leaves much of the Bible open to discussion and interpretations that may vary. I think what you will find among Protestants is that churches or denominations in general have a statement of faith with which all the members agree (or are supposed to agree). Those statements of faith typically address the central doctrines of the Christian faith and may include some matters of faith and practice that aren't central to the catholic (universal) faith but which distinguish the church or denomination in some way. These doctrinal statements usually reflect conclusions of some sort of systematic theology, as I think the ancient creeds did, and do not represent a verse-by-verse (or pericope-by-pericope) interpretation of the scriptures.

Certain passages of Scripture may accompany doctrinal affirmations in the statement of faith, indicating that the church believes those scriptures teach the doctrines affirmed. But as with systematic theologies, individual passages of Scripture may be interpreted in a way that does not support the teaching in question. Yet this leaves much of the Bible uninterpreted in any authoritative sense, and members are free to hold differing views on many doctrinal questions which are not deemed central to the faith and life of the church. If members discover at some point that they disagree with their church on some doctrinal question, they are typically free to continue as members provided they don't openly oppose the statement of faith. And even open disagreement may be allowed with respect to more peripheral matters of faith and practice.

But from the Protestant's perspective, it is not the church or denomination that has authority to interpret the Scriptures even when it comes to the central doctrines of the faith. Rather, the church or denomination has an opportunity to rightly interpret the Scriptures. But they also have an opportunity (I use the word avisedly) to interpret them wrongly. So ultimately, the question is whether the church or denomination interprets the scriptures correctly. Interpretations aren't viewed as authoritative just because leaders in the church affirm them.

_________________
"The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him." (John 14:21)

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Who gets to decide that...for in that decision lies the authority that I am speaking about...

..and who determines whether the Church or denomination interprets the Scriptures correctly? I mean...that is simply a statement that the individual faithful is authoritative over what the Church may have to say on any subject covered within Scriptures.


...they are if the faithful are required to assent to them in order to be affiliated with that faith community...

So, the choices are - conform to a faith discerned by a Church...or...individually define a faith and find a Church that conforms to it.

This is not to say that the Church's discernment cannot be questioned...it can...

I think for some of these Churches, a simple query will reveal the uninformed (or misinformed) state of the individual doing the questioning. It wouldn't occur to me to have a go at an English translation of Scriptures, without having some assistance and guidance, anymore than I would tackle Differential Equations alone with only a textbook, and some teacher or knowledgeable math authority to cross-examine during my discernment of Differential Equations.

_________________
..."Absence of evidence" is not "Evidence of absence"...

I'm not sure I understand the question. If you've ever read a systematic theology text and checked the scriptural references listed in support of the doctrines discussed, you have probably discovered that contextually some of those references do not in fact support the doctrine in question. That's not to say that the doctrine itself is wrong, as there are typically numerous other scriptures that do support it. My point is that one can, based on sound hermeneutics, disagree with an apparent interpretation of a particular passage without necessarily disagreeing with a teaching that has been associated with it. In such a case you would have agreement with the general understanding of what Scripture teaches on a given subject, but still have an interpretive disagreement with respect to a particular passage. Speaking for myself, I would make my own judgment on something like this, but I would do so in a defensible manner and not arbitrarily.

The reality is that most students of the Bible who have the Spirit of Christ readily agree together on the core doctrines of the faith because they are so clearly taught in Scripture. We jointly believe, for example, in the deity and humanity of Christ because these truths are plainly taught in the Bible. We don't believe these truths just because some man says they are so. Rather, like the Bereans to whom Paul preached Christ (Acts 17:10-12), we search the scriptures to see whether they say it is so.

I'm not quite sure how you're using the term "the faithful." I would take that to mean those who are faithful to Christ, but perhaps you are meaning those who are faithful to the church or denomination and, by extension, to its leaders. I can see your perspective, but what I'm trying to tell you is that most Protestants don't think that way. While some are more capable than others, we are all capable of reading the Bible; and the more we do so, the more capable we become. It is to Christ, whose Spirit indwells us, that each of us must give account. It is therefore incumbent upon each of us to understand the Lord's will and to follow it. If after prayerful study we determine that a particular faith community is wrong in a particular interpretation, we are individually bound to follow the truth as we understand it. To do otherwise would mean violating one's conscience, and that would be sin.

Yes and no. While it may be true that some try to be "lone rangers" who individually define a faith, the norm is for us to do theology in community. We must each determine what we believe. Otherwise, we don't really believe; we're just sort of going along with the crowd, but we have no real conviction. We have no real faith other than what we are personally so persuaded is true that we will live by it, and if need be die by it. But we don't arrive at our faith (what we believe) individually. We listen, read, study, question, rejoin, pray, and eventually settle on what we believe is true. And as we do this, we do not set ourselves over Scripture, as though we had some right to say what Scripture means. On the contrary, we place ourselves under Scripture, recognizing that it is God's word to us, that it reveals objective truth, and that it is our duty to discern that truth, whatever it might be, and submit ourselves to it.

_________________
"The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him." (John 14:21)

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

I believe in is the individual priesthood of the believer. This teaching means that as a believer I have the right and the obligation to interpret scripture. However, this does not guarantee that my interpretation is correct even if I am filled with the Spirit.
I follow some basic rules:
Regula Fidei (Irenaeus ca. 200 A.D.), the regula fidei (rule of faith) which states to look to the immemorial believes of Christians which are derived from the Scriptures and succinctly stated in the Apostle's creed.

Compare scripture to scripture for consistency

Interpret using the context of the passage.

Pray and ask God for guidance.

I use tradition and ancient writings, even in Latin, for illumination and guidance but I realize these traditions are not on the same level as the Bible.

Let's take your example above. We know God has revealed Himself to His people. In my case, I believe this has been done through "Church" (...any Church...Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Evangelical Church...take your pick...God has revealed Himself through the institute of Church), in your case, you believe this has been done through "Scriptures", independent of Church ("Church" is simply the collection of faithful, who use Scriptures to come to a correct understanding of God, and gather themselves into assemblies of like-minded faithful).

So, let's run with that for a minute...the entirety of God's revelation to His people is contained within the Koine Greek Scripts of the 27 Books of the NT.

So - I might do what you suggest...in my effort and journey to fully understand this revelation, which is my objective and desire. I might seek out an author (or authors...or council) which has composed a "systematic theology" based on a reading and interpretation of Scriptures, using preparation in and knowledge of ancient culture, Koine Greek Language and Linguistics, the understanding of idioms and other language construction commonly used in Aramaic speaking cultures of the first century, etc.

I exercise personal judgment as to whether or not I agree with the authors/authorities regarding this theology and its development, and if I don't have another instructor to which I might compare, I am going to seek some level of provenance or pedigree in these instructors in order to know that what they are telling me is correct, based on the likelihood that they are, given what they have learned in their studies and what motivated them to develop their theology.

So...at the end of the day, my learning is an assent to an understanding or a body of knowledge presented by someone, who learned that knowledge or understanding from someone else. This is magisterium, the passage of knowledge from teachers to students, who then eventually become teachers themselves, and repeat the cycle.

In my investigations of potential sources of magisterium, I simply went with what I believe to be the one with the best lineage, the best pedigree, the best claim, the best provenance. I have spent plenty of time studying the likes of Luther, Calvin, Knox, Wesley, etc. and I continually complete that circle right back to Rome.

For a believer to read Scriptures, and say "there is no Sacrament of Holy Orders (ordination)", one is doing that counter to another teaching from some folks that take the contravening position. So the logical thing to do is examine the preparation and learning of the folks taking the positions. For someone to say "no Holy Orders", they would have to whip out Greek Scripts and make their case.

So often on these sites, I find that not to be the case. I most often see individual faithful, fervently reading their favorite English translation, and then deciding what is and isn't. I disagree with this approach.

"Bind and loose" is something you might do with ropes, but it doesn't begin to describe the Jewish idiom from which it is derived. The translations are all simply literal and faithful translations from Koine Greek into English of the very words present in the Scripts, but "Bind and loose" means a lot to the Jewish faithful that your average American isn't going to understand.

That's just one example from literally hundreds possible.

At the end of the day, we owe what we know to our teachers. Those that taught us English to begin with, and those that taught us what Scriptures are actually saying - apart from the literal meaning of the words used. This is a description of "authority" - assenting to the view of a teacher and making their understanding our understanding.

So, my caution is to check the pedigree of your teachers...and the magisterium from which they descend...

_________________
..."Absence of evidence" is not "Evidence of absence"...

All faithful of all denominations are encouraged to read and know Scriptures and to check what is being taught against what is being presented in Scriptures. In the case of the Bereans, the check was the authority of the Apostles against the authority of, most likely, the Talmud (which is...again...a "teaching" authority) or perhaps Levitican Law (Jesus was teaching a "new approach" in regard to the law, so the message of the Apostles was compared to the law). In this case, if the Bereans were simply "laiety", then they were exercising the same personal judgment that all faithful must exercise.

Do you think that once the Bereans found the Apostles authoritative, they abandoned the Apostles as potential teachers and instructors? I mean - after all they had apparently been discerning on their own up to that point, authoritatively - at least to themselves.


I mean those who are faithful to Christ, while noting that many who know Christ know Him through the Church and the Church's discernment of Scriptures and the magisterium.


Two things...the more capable should be helping people like me...and...why is it that the more we examine Scriptures, the more capable we become. We are static on "Binding and Loosing" until someone shares with us the understanding of the context of this as used within the Rabbinical traditions and role within Judaism. So, the more teachers we utilize, the broader and deeper our understanding can become, as we embrace the "correct" teachers, and reject the under-qualified ones, utilizing our personal judgment to try to make this determination.


Amen...Amen...Amen...the objective all who are passionate about God, through Jesus, is to know as much as is possible, as accurately as possible, to the greatest extent possible.

The discussions on sites like these are for each of us to share just how it is we came to the determinations that we each hold, and attempt to justify those determinations, for consideration by each other.


You bet...Catholics are no different in this regard, and it is true that all faithful vote with their feet...


I believe this as well...while acknowledging that, at the end of the day, I have to decide which teacher is best equipped to provide instruction to gain the comprehension and understanding I seek, and then to assent to that instruction. It is not a matter of "a person being over Scripture", anymore than the Calculus teacher is over Sir Isaac Newton. That person doing the teaching is authoritative for the student, as long as the student considers what is being presented, and assents to it. This is how people learn Calculus...they have to take the teachers word for it, until they get out in the world, use it, and discover that it is a really, really good tool for predicting the behavior of bodies in motion, for example.

If someone teaches you Calculus, and you can't predict the motion of bodies very well, and you observe that others seem to be able to do this using Calculus...you are going to question the voracity and competence of your teacher, and perhaps seek another one who can show you where your understanding of Calculus went off the rails of the crazy train.

Learning what is required to fully participate in a faithwalk is not an entirely different exercise, in my opinion. I think its valid to discuss the competence of Archbishop Timothy Dolan versus Joyce Meters, for example, in terms of being a teaching authority (which is what Bishops are for Catholics...)

Sorry for writing a dissertation...I thought your interest deserved the time and the explanations. I am enjoying the dialog.

_________________
..."Absence of evidence" is not "Evidence of absence"...

You are not suggesting that God is incapable of revealing truth to his people, are you? It must be possible to infallibly know God, otherwise God is incapable of accurately and truthfully revealing Himself to us...

...somebody somewhere has to have it right...otherwise God is incompetent or the Holy Spirit has fallen down on the job...


Agreed...

_________________
..."Absence of evidence" is not "Evidence of absence"...

I would like to know which articles of faith and teachings of Christ are contained in Sacred Tradition and not in Scripture.

I don't discount the importance of ecclesiastical tradition nor the Church's role as mother but since Sacred Tradition is claimed to be an independent source of dogma, and not merely the historical and practical application of scriptural teachings to the life of the Church, it would be helpful to know what it consists of, otherwise it would seem to be a useless rule of faith.

_________________
"THE LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" (Psalm 27:1)

Here are three rather important Sacred Traditions of the Church:

1. The doctrine of the Trinity as defined by the Council of Nicea.

2. The doctrine of the Hypostatic Union of the Divine Person of Jesus Christ as defined by the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.

3. The doctrine that what we call the Gospels (and the other 23 books of the New Testament) are the inspired, written Word of God and are therefore Scripture.

Oremus pro invicem,
Campion

_________________
Contemplare et contemplata aliis tradere. - St. Thomas Aquinas

Thanks for taking the time to answer me, Campion.



1. This doctrine was proven by Scripture, it's not something absent from it or just contained in the oral tradition that is claimed to be a separate source of dogma. The Council Fathers themselves had recourse to the sacred texts to prove the salutary nature of this doctrine and to draft the ecumenical creed of Nicea still in universal use today among orthodox Christians of all denominations. Athanasius' testimony is telling: "Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture." (De Synodis 1, 6)

2. Same as the above.

3. I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that Christ orally revealed to the Apostles which would be the 27 books of the NT before they were even written down? Surely the contents of the Apostolic Faith were preached orally to the new-born churches before finally being enscribed in what we have come to know as the Canon of the New Testament. The 2nd century Church Father Irenaeus says as much: "The apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith." (Against Heresies 3, 1)

_________________
"THE LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" (Psalm 27:1)

The doctrine of the Trinity states the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system. In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together.

The doctrine, as defined and declared at Nicea, cannot be derived from the Scriptures alone. The reason being is the doctrine is not explicitly stated in the Scriptures. The Catholic Church believes in Prima Scriptura as well as the material sufficiency of Scripture, meaning all doctrine is found in the Scriptures at least implicitly. This is the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers, including the great doctor you quote, St. Athanasius. In the case of the doctrine of the Trinity, how many times do the Council Fathers actually quote Scripture when defining the doctrine? Instead, to what do they make their appeal to in defending and defining the Catholic doctrine? The answer is Sacred Tradition handed on from the Apostles to their successors. St. Athanasius goes on to state exactly this if you continue on to chapters 7-14 of Part I as well as Parts II and III of his De Synodis.




Again, there is no verse in Scripture where the doctrine of the Hypostatic union of the Divine Person of Christ is stated explicitly. The Hypostatic Union of Christ, as defined at Ephesus and reaffirmed at Chalcedon, is the dogma that in Christ the two natures, the divine and the human, each retain its own properties and are united in one subsistence and one person (eis en prosopon kai mian hpostasin). They are not joined in a moral or accidental union, nor commingled, and nevertheless they are substantially united. You will find this dogma nowhere in Scripture, for it is a Sacred Tradition.




What I am saying is you have no way of knowing St. Matthew's Gospel is inspired or whether St. Mark's is were it not for Sacred Tradition (Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage for example). St. Luke, for example, opens his Gospel stating what he is writing is Sacred Tradition. The only reason your New Testament has St. Matthew's Gospel in it is because the Catholic Church's Sacred Tradition tells you it is inspired.

Campion

P.S. I'm curious as to why you stated in another thread as well as another that you were a traditional Catholic? "I've been a traditional Catholic myself for years..." Why the need to be deceptive?

_________________
Contemplare et contemplata aliis tradere. - St. Thomas Aquinas

The doctrine is certainly contained in Scripture, it's not absent from it which was precisely my point.


Of course it had to be derived from the Scriptures alone, even if it wasn't "explicit" (which I wouldn't concede). Where else could it be derived from? The Tradition of the Church, as understood in the first centuries, is merely the liturgical and catechetical application of scriptural truths.


This is simply not true. The Roman Catholic Church believes that Sacred Tradition is on the same plain as the Holy Scriptures as a source of dogma. All Christian dogma is not contained in the Scriptures, it is also contained in Sacred Tradition. Prima Scriptura has been en vogue among some post-Vatican II theologians, yes, but that's not the teaching of Rome.

The incontrovertible fact that the Church doesn't believe that all doctrine is found in the Scriptures, has been the definition of such dogmas as the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility, none of which is contained in the Scriptures, neither explicitly nor implicitly. Even the Roman Catholic Church herself doesn't pretend they are: instead she appeals to Sacred Tradition and the infallible magisterium of the Church.


Only if by "Sacred Tradition" you mean the cumulative catechetical, apologetical, liturgical and theological expounding on the truths of Scripture. If by "Sacred Tradition" you mean an independent oral source of dogma, then certainly not.


None of the councils you listed was ecumenical, so the decisions regarding the Canon of Scripture were not applied to the whole Church. Until the "infallible" definition of Trent in the 16th century which included the deuterocanonical books or the Apocrypha as inspired scripture, there were many who adhered to Jerome's Canon.

The Christian Church recognised what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, it discovers what is already authentic. Jesus said "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me." (John 10:27). The Church hears the voice of Christ; that is, she recognises what is inspired and it follows the word.

Secondly, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament which is the Scripture to which Christ and the apostles appealed. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, how can she claim to have given us the Old Testament which is part of the Bible? She didn't, so she cannot make that claim. The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognise what is and what is not inspired. The Jews knew what was inspired of God and they recognized what God had inspired. That is what those who are of God do.

Thirdly, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn't any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself.

Finally, the Scripture says, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God," (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.


Why are you calling me "deceptive"? I've revealed that so that you may know where I'm coming from. That's all.

_________________
"THE LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" (Psalm 27:1)

Did you mean "on the same plane"?

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.

Yes. My bad.

_________________
"THE LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" (Psalm 27:1)