The Presumptive Arrogance Of Studied Christians.

[JoReba]

It is an innate part of human culture to recognize and appoint various authorities and experts on any number of given issues. The concept of authority, however, is easily confused in English speaking societies because the English word "authority" has two distinct meanings, not very often discerned when people deal with authority.

The two basic meanings of "authority" exist:

1.) The possession of informational expertise, having atypical knowledge, greater discernment, and finely discriminative capacity upon a given area.

2.) The holding of determinitive power over some other person or persons, whereby the holder of the authority can possibly control the actions, expressions, and status of another.

These two definitions do not overlap in their content, although any given person "in authority" may have both definitions operative within themself.

This being understood, there is no reason for any informational expert in relation to the discernment of Scripture should pressume to tell other people what they:

1.) Must realize.
2.) Need to know.
3.) Must look at.
4.) Are to grasp.
5.) Have to accept.
6.) Must conclude.
7.) Need to see as "key."
8.) Must remember.
9.) Need to look at.

Any teacher, expositor, preacher, pastor, writer, conversationalist, or forum poster who makes such statements is presumptuously arrogant. They need loving correction.

 

[woodlandapple]

Any teacher, expositor, preacher, pastor, writer, conversationalist, or forum poster who makes such statements is presumptuously arrogant. They need loving correction.

lol, is that being presumptuosly arrogant aswell ; )

as a discussion, I was wondering on what part do those who arnt 'in authority' or who dont have the gift of teaching, pastoring, or other expertise in ministry have in regards to respecting these God given roles? and what level do people need to humble themselves to those who's authority or knowledge exeeds there own?

and how does english and modern interpretation of authority relate to biblical Authority, or does it not relate at all?
And how can we distinguish those who have the Gift of authority (and maturity in) vrs those who claim it (or immaturity)

just to turn this topic into a conversation rather than a statement.

 

[Former Christian]

Woodlandapple

Ah. but this thread is a statement. If you have a problem with the statement, then it becomes a conversation. Or more apt, a debate between two people who have a difference of opinion.


JoReba

Peter makes it clear there is no authority among those who are in Christ. No Lords of the realm, as it were. Except the Lord Jesus Christ, of course. Paul says things that could be construed as authority, but if that is what he meant, then it is a direct contradiction to what Peter clearly says.

Authoritative people might say that you are anti-authoritarian. But it seems to me that a valid problem among Christians is brought up. The language used that is enumerated in the account does appear at first glance to be rather authoritarian.

But we must also realize (sorry) that each of us in our own way believes that what we believe is the truth. Otherwise we are believing a lie of our own making. So it is natural to present the truth as we see it as the truth that it is to us. It can be done with arrogance, denouncing and denigrating every other view as heresy. Or it can be done in.... I was going to say in love, but that is too subjective. It can be done with respect for the other person whom we realize is as limited and as fallen as we are. And giving the benefit of the doubt that such a one is simply, like ourselves merely searching for a greater understanding of truth and will with an open mind and Spiritual discernment, not only recognize the truth when we see it, but will change to conform to it. While also realizing that not all actually fit that bill.

The phrases enumerated are common buzz words. I use many of them myself. But I don't consider myself to be arrogant just because I use buzz words. Give me different buzz words that have the same meaning, but are more acceptable, and I will use them instead.

Sometimes a judgment can also be a sign of arrogance.

FC

 

[dadof10]

It is an innate part of human culture to recognize and appoint various authorities and experts on any number of given issues. The concept of authority, however, is easily confused in English speaking societies because the English word "authority" has two distinct meanings, not very often discerned when people deal with authority.

The two basic meanings of "authority" exist:

1.) The possession of informational expertise, having atypical knowledge, greater discernment, and finely discriminative capacity upon a given area.

2.) The holding of determinitive power over some other person or persons, whereby the holder of the authority can possibly control the actions, expressions, and status of another.

These two definitions do not overlap in their content, although any given person "in authority" may have both definitions operative within themself.

This being understood, there is no reason for any informational expert in relation to the discernment of Scripture should pressume to tell other people what they:

1.) Must realize.
2.) Need to know.
3.) Must look at.
4.) Are to grasp.
5.) Have to accept.
6.) Must conclude.
7.) Need to see as "key."
8.) Must remember.
9.) Need to look at.

Any teacher, expositor, preacher, pastor, writer, conversationalist, or forum poster who makes such statements is presumptuously arrogant. They need loving correction.

Then how are we to discern truth from Scripture? Is Truth simply subjective?

 

[dadof10]

Peter makes it clear there is no authority among those who are in Christ. No Lords of the realm, as it were. Except the Lord Jesus Christ, of course. Paul says things that could be construed as authority, but if that is what he meant, then it is a direct contradiction to what Peter clearly says.

I would say Peter, James and the author Of Hebrews all wrote very authoritatively to their flocks. Paul to the universal Church. Also, there was a Church hierarchy from the very beginning, historically speaking. I don't know of any ancient documents (first or second century) complaining of authority in general. Certainly there were a few complaints about individual churchmen, but none that I know of which complained that there should be NO authority but Jesus. They all realized that Jesus came to start a Church on earth and that His authority was passed on to them, and in turn, passed on to others. (Acts 1:15-26)

14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (John (RSV) 16)

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew (RSV) 16)

15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew (RSV) 18)

The Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly writes: "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

 

[Stormcrow]

Peter makes it clear there is no authority among those who are in Christ.

Then why did Paul write this to the Corinthians?

For this reason I am writing these things while absent, so that when present I need not use severity, in accordance with the authority which the Lord gave me for building up and not for tearing down. 2 Corinthians 13:10 (NASB)

Or this to Titus?

These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. Titus 2:15 (NASB)

Before I write a single word on these fora, I study to make sure I know what I'm writing, so that I can present my view with authority. Whether anyone accepts or rejects what I write is entirely up to them. If that makes me "presumptively arrogant", so be it. From what I've seen on this board (and others), there's more than enough of that to go around.

For what it's worth.

 

[dadof10]

Then why did Paul write this to the Corinthians?

For this reason I am writing these things while absent, so that when present I need not use severity, in accordance with the authority which the Lord gave me for building up and not for tearing down. 2 Corinthians 13:10 (NASB)

Or this to Titus?

These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. Titus 2:15 (NASB)

Before I write a single word on these fora, I study to make sure I know what I'm writing, so that I can present my view with authority. Whether anyone accepts or rejects what I write is entirely up to them. If that makes me "presumptively arrogant", so be it. From what I've seen on this board (and others), there's more than enough of that to go around.

For what it's worth.

What if someone disagrees with you, claiming the SAME authority? Seems to me that private interpretation of Scripture is not the way to discern Truth.

 

[Former Christian]

Dadof10

I would say Peter, James and the author Of Hebrews all wrote very authoritatively to their flocks.

As did all the writers of Scripture, if one considers the NT a part of God-breathed Scripture.

Also, there was a Church hierarchy from the very beginning, historically speaking.

No doubt. But they didn’t get the idea from Peter obviously. Paul’s writings to Timothy are generally used as the primary ground for the idea of authoritative government among the believers. A misunderstanding according to the view I present.

I am neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant. I am a former Christian. Not a non-Christian, a former Christian. And the view I present reflects that, in that the view I present is not subject to the interpretations common to Christianity. As Protestants interpret the bible to attain their own ideas, so also does Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy interpret history and the bible to attain their own ideas. From your perspective, the view I present is just another individual interpretation that is counter to Roman Catholicism. Unacceptable by all rights of the Roman Catholic Church. But then, the same is true in regards to Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy. As you can clearly see in post #6, a Protestant, at least he seems be Protestant influenced in his ideas, who shares your concern.

What if someone disagrees with you, claiming the SAME authority? Seems to me that private interpretation of Scripture is not the way to discern Truth.

Seems to me that any manner of interpretation, which is obviously the human way, is not the way to discern truth. Not the Protestant way, the Roman Catholic way, nor the private way.

FC

 

[ChristianNationalist]

Hey pot, have you met kettle?

 

[dadof10]

Dadof10



As did all the writers of Scripture, if one considers the NT a part of God-breathed Scripture.

FC, I think you are misunderstanding me. For the sake of this topic, I'm not taking the books of the NT as "God-breathed Scripture", although I believe they are, I'm taking them as purely historical documents. They, and other Christian documents written at the time, show an authoritative hierarchy. I was responding to this:

"Peter makes it clear there is no authority among those who are in Christ. No Lords of the realm, as it were. Except the Lord Jesus Christ, of course. Paul says things that could be construed as authority, but if that is what he meant, then it is a direct contradiction to what Peter clearly says."

No doubt. But they didn’t get the idea from Peter obviously. Paul’s writings to Timothy are generally used as the primary ground for the idea of authoritative government among the believers. A misunderstanding according to the view I present.

Right, I disagree with your view, including your take on Peter. Both of his letters are authoritative, the first one to a five areas "in exile", the second to "those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ", which assumes the universal Church. He, Paul and the author of Hebrews ALL write with an authority that would have been rejected if it wwasn't assumed by the recipients. There is no historical record of any rejection of this authority. On the contrary, the apostles handed on this authority to others.

I am neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant. I am a former Christian. Not a non-Christian, a former Christian. And the view I present reflects that, in that the view I present is not subject to the interpretations common to Christianity. As Protestants interpret the bible to attain their own ideas, so also does Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy interpret history and the bible to attain their own ideas.

There is no "interpretation" of history from Catholicism. There is the historical fact that there was an authoritative Church hierarchy from the beginning, which is accepted by Catholic and Protestant historians alike. I don't know of any historical records that present the contrary, do you?

There is, however, subjective Bible interpretation on the Protestant side, which is the hallmark of Protestantism.

From your perspective, the view I present is just another individual interpretation that is counter to Roman Catholicism. Unacceptable by all rights of the Roman Catholic Church.

No, the view you present is not historically accurate.

Seems to me that any manner of interpretation, which is obviously the human way, is not the way to discern truth.

Here, we agree. Jesus founded an authoritative Church and sent the Holy Spirit to guide HER. He didn't commission the writing of books and then send the Holy Spirit to guide each individual reading believer to the fullness of Truth. We see how well that has worked since the Reformation. I also agree with the bulk of your first post on this thread. I think we all assume "you must believe this" or "accept this" when we argue. I don't think there is any "arrogance" attached.

 

[Stormcrow]

What if someone disagrees with you, claiming the SAME authority?

Even the apostles had disagreements. The obvious rejoinder to your question is, "And...?"

Seems to me that private interpretation of Scripture is not the way to discern Truth.

I don't "privately interpret scripture" apart from what we know from the rest of the canon of Biblical text and the history that surrounds it, including the cultural context in which such letters or books were written.

As far as I know, this is the way any good literary study is conducted.

Agree or disagree?

 

[Stormcrow]

Here's what I mean...

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=40550&pagenumber=

And other resources I use:

http://www.tertullian.org/works.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/index.htm

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html/

http://ncbible.info/MoodRes/History/WorksofFlaviusJosephus1.pdf

http://ncbible.info/MoodRes/History/EusebiusChurchHistory.pdf

And that's just a start. I. for one, am sick and tired of reading the regurgitated garbage coming from the disciples of so-called "Biblical scholars" today, namely the Tim LaHayes and Jack van Impes of the church. Want to get closer to the truth?

Get closer to the source.

'Nuff said.

And one more thing:

I don't accept this idea that everything is just a matter of "personal interpretation", as though each and every interpretation carries the same amount of weight and is - therefore - all either equally true or false. There is a right way to interpret the Bible and a wrong way to do it and you'll forgive my "presumptive arrogance" if I believe my way is better than others I see posted here.

 

[Danus]

this is a classic thread. one for the books.

 

[zeke]

I would say Peter, James and the author Of Hebrews all wrote very authoritatively to their flocks. Paul to the universal Church. Also, there was a Church hierarchy from the very beginning, historically speaking. I don't know of any ancient documents (first or second century) complaining of authority in general.

Didn't Peter also warn there would arise among the Lord's church "false teachers" (i.e., authorities) who would introduce "destructive heresies" into the church? Can we go back into the first few centuries of church history and see where heresies were indeed introduced by men who claimed (falsely) 'apostolic succession'?

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.
(2Pe 2:1 NKJV)​

 

[zeke]

There is no "interpretation" of history from Catholicism. There is the historical fact that there was an authoritative Church hierarchy from the beginning, which is accepted by Catholic and Protestant historians alike. I don't know of any historical records that present the contrary, do you?

I think most scholarship regarding church history that does not come out of Catholicism presents the historical fact that many false doctrines were incrementally introduced into the Lord's church by Catholicism - to point that the Lord's church and traditional Catholicity split the sheets long ago.

 

[Sinthesis]

I think most scholarship regarding church history that does not come out of Catholicism presents the historical fact that many false doctrines were incrementally introduced into the Lord's church by Catholicism - to point that the Lord's church and traditional Catholicity split the sheets long ago.

I shall then arrogantly presume you to be Eastern Orthodox!

 

[zeke]

I shall then arrogantly presume you to be Eastern Orthodox!

No - your assumption would be wrong. The Orthodox folks have their own doctrinal baggage that cannot be found in Holy Writ. I would, however agree with their rejection of 'Papal authority' and other RCC error.

 

[dadof10]

Even the apostles had disagreements.

Yes, and they had a system in place to settle these disagreements. Read Acts 15 and note how the disagreement was settled, with a council. This is what the Catholic Church has done throughout history and still does today. Note, also that the decisions reached in Jerusalem were binding on the WHOLE CHURCH.

"As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem." (Acts (RSV) 16:4)

Protestant disputes are never settled because the entire basis of Protestantism is private interpretation of Scripture, and one interpreter has as much authority as another. "Every milkmaid with a Bible thinks she's the Pope." The end result is division and splinter churches.

The obvious rejoinder to your question is, "And...?"

...and which personal interpretation is the correct one, and why? Who is the final authority?

I don't "privately interpret scripture" apart from what we know from the rest of the canon of Biblical text and the history that surrounds it, including the cultural context in which such letters or books were written.

OK, let me rephrase the question: If you claim the above and someone else also claims "I don't "privately interpret scripture" apart from what we know from the rest of the canon of Biblical text and the history that surrounds it, including the cultural context in which such letters or books were written", and you both come to completely opposite conclusions, which view is the Biblical view and why?

As far as I know, this is the way any good literary study is conducted.

Agree or disagree?

I agree, but this still doesn't solve your problem. We are trying to discern Truth, not merely study Scripture, and subjective interpretation won't get us there. We need a final Authority.

 

[dadof10]

Didn't Peter also warn there would arise among the Lord's church "false teachers" (i.e., authorities) who would introduce "destructive heresies" into the church? Can we go back into the first few centuries of church history and see where heresies were indeed introduced by men who claimed (falsely) 'apostolic succession'?

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.
(2Pe 2:1 NKJV)​

Of course. There were false doctrines being introduced from the beginning, even during apostolic times. Acts 15 gives one example and how the Early Church dealt with it. In fact, a council is the BIBLICAL WAY for Christianity to deal with heresy. As I noted to Stormcrow, the council came to a decision and that decision was binding on all Christians, not just the church at Jerusalem. Is this the way Protestant churches deal with disagreements and heresy, or do the dissenters simply break off and start their own church? Which of the two uses the Biblical model?

 

[dadof10]

I think most scholarship regarding church history that does not come out of Catholicism presents the historical fact that many false doctrines were incrementally introduced into the Lord's church by Catholicism

Which "scholarship regarding church history that does not come out of Catholicism"? Could you please list some of the historians or at least a few of the books or accounts you are referencing?

- to point that the Lord's church and traditional Catholicity split the sheets long ago.

The Catholic Church has taught the same doctrine for over 2000 years. To prove your point, you need to show historically a "Lord''s church" that existed beside the Catholic Church since the beginning.