biblecatholic
Member
Does everyone have the authority to interpret the scriptures?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
Who has the Authority to Interpret Scripture?
- Thread starter biblecatholic
- Start date
cyberjosh
Member
Well if you'll forgive my bluntness, where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom, not subjection to the dictums of the Pope, and the Spirit will lead us into all truth.
I know that isn't a direct answer to your question but I thought I'd start by process of elimination.
~Josh
I know that isn't a direct answer to your question but I thought I'd start by process of elimination.
~Josh
francisdesales
Member
cybershark5886 said:
What does Paul refer to when he says "freedom"?
Does it mean the same thing as our secular society means, to do whatever the heck I want no matter what anyone else thinks?
Or does it mean that I am freed from sin and am now able to fulfill my purpose in life and to be fully man (which means to obey God)?
Regards
biblecatholic
Member
so are all subject to your "dictums".... so you can freely interpret the scriptures but you say the pope can't. you can combine the denominational beliefs of your choosing and make essentially your own personal denomination and you have a problem with a prime minister of the Church, but you yourself have more power than the pope you can pick and choose what you like according to your private interpretation, you say you have no pope but you have a pope, super pope might be more appropriate, and it is you, you have more power than he doescybershark5886 said:
i figured i'd get this out of the way about your dictums and private interpretation and your personal denominationcybershark5886 said:
cyberjosh
Member
We are set free from the law (a salvation of works) to then follow the leading of the Spirit, not necessarily the Pope. I tried to qualify what I said by immediately thereafter mentioning our liberty in the Spirit that the Spirit in turn will lead us into all truth, thus no not a license for antinomianism. But the problem of which Church is most Spirit filled to follow that leading is a big one. Infact I just made a new thread called "An unfortunate paradox in the Church" (which I was going to post in here but realized it could warrant its own topic) which deals with this a bit. You might want to read it as I do mention the issue with interpreting the Bible.
God Bless,
~Josh
francisdesales
Member
cybershark5886 said:
the "Law" is not a "salvation of works". Have you ever read the Psalms? The writer takes a different attitude than you do regarding God's Laws. He seems to say that these Laws FREE man!
cybershark5886 said:
And when if the Spirit tells us that Christ left authoritative figures to lead His Body? What then? Do we ignore that Spirit and follow the one we feel most comfortable following, namely, the one that allows me to do whatever I feel like? Which "spirit" guided Adam in the Garden? He, too, interpreted the fruit to be pleasant and didn't trust what God commanded...
cybershark5886 said:
That sounds nice in theory, but where does this work in practice in Protestantism? Logically speaking, the Spirit doesn't lead many people in different directions - otherwise, He wouldn't be the Spirit of Truth. I have not found any Scripture verses that tell us that the Holy Spirit helps us personally to interpret the Scriptures.
cybershark5886 said:
It is not a matter of judging "which is the most "spirit-filled". There are absolutely NO verses that suggest that we window shop the various Christian communities until we find one that suits our fancy.
Now, none of this suggests that I personally cannot read the Bible. I do. And I interpret it, but I do so with the "mind" of the Church. I take into consideration what the pillar and foundation of the Truth has said about such passages. I am careful to note that I am not the pillar and foundation of the truth. Thus, if I run across a Scriptural passage, and I think it goes against what the Church teaches, it is my responsibility to find out why I am incorrect - not think that the Church is wrong and I am right.
Even the Pope cannot change that. If the Church has believed something, even he cannot change that. The Spirit does not lie. He guides both the "sense of the faithful" and the Bishops in union with the Pope. They cannot contradict.
Regards
D
Dan Edwin
Guest
francisdesales said:
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5)
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? (2 Corinthians 13:5)
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: (Ephesians 4:13)
Take care, and trust the Lord
cyberjosh
Member
Dan Edwin said:
Yes, I agree. Perhaps I made a mistake in not elaborating. Salvation cannot be achieved by the law for the law's purpose was to increase sin and point to Jesus, the true savior. Trying to obey the law can lead to an attempt at salvation by works (Pharisees, Sadducees, etc.) if one misapprehends it (as to its purpose as the "tutor"), though as Paul said the law was perfect and is good to those who use it "lawfully" (1 Timothy 1:8). Psalm 19:7 says "The law of the lord is perfect, reviving the soul." So I did not mean to cast a negative light on the law, only its achievements in the life of man. I was seeking for the law vs. Spirit contrast that Paul used.
God Bless,
~Josh
cyberjosh
Member
Francis said:
I do agree with this. But as with my other thread I share your same concern as to how splits in the Church play out with the leading of the Spirit. For which Church should we seek this council from? Obviously you should be faithful to your home Church and only if the Spirit expressly says otherwise over a matter (which can lead to Church splits - which happened in our last Church) then we must concede to their decision. I tried to expand on this in the other thread. See my responses there.
P.S. Thanks for your thoughts in the "Paradox" thread BTW.
God Bless,
~Josh
francisdesales
Member
cybershark5886 said:
That's an excellent question. I think if I lived during the time of an "anti-pope", I would be put in the position to "choose" which leader to follow (visible leader, of course!). An informed Catholic would hopefully be open to both positions and ask the Spirit to guide them in the correct course of action. This means that this person should be prepared to "switch positions" if the Spirit decides to alert the Church what HE thinks by making it known which one was the correct Pope and which was an anti-pope.
Obedience is very important as a member of the Church. We believe that the Scriptures and God desire that we follow properly appointed leaders, in that they have been chosen by God, not the other way around. Thus, we should follow our leaders - and if it turns out that they were leading us astray, God will know the motives of our hearts. If we were following our leaders with good intentions, trusting that God was leading them - but they weren't - God will certainly take that into account.
Catholics call this "invincible ignorance", and often apply it to some of our separated brothers who are being misled - but are of clean hearts and motives. They are obeying whom they think are prpoerly appointed leaders of the church - and we believe that God will take their hearts into account.
Regards
dadof10
Member
cybershark5886 said:
Why? Why would your personal "home Church" be any more authoritative than some other persons home church?
Again, Why? Why would their decision (I assume you mean on matters of faith and morals, not personal counseling) be any more valid than someone elses or your own? And how do you objectively discern if the Holy Spirit "expressly says otherwise over a matter"?
Josh, let me give you a scenario:
Pastor A claims to be and actually is "born again". He seems to be guided by the Spirit and is a fine upstanding member of his community. He reads Scripture, prays for guidance and comes to the conclusion that once a person is truly born again he can never lose his salvation.
Pastor B claims to be and actually is "born again". He seems to be guided by the Spirit and is a fine upstanding member of his community. He reads Scripture, prays for guidance and comes to the conclusion that after a person is truly born again he must continue in his faith or he CAN and will lose his salvation.
Which one of these doctrines is true and how are we to know?
God Bless,
Mark
francisdesales
Member
cybershark5886 said:
Oh my gosh! The law's purpose was to increase sin??? God gave the Decalogue so that man would sin MORE???
If Jesus fulfilled the Law, that means that the Law's fulfillment INCREASES sin in the world!!!
What on earth are you saying?
The purpose of the Law is to point to God's Will! The problem with the Law is that it gave man no power to obey it! We are still bound by the Law as Christians. But now, we have been given the power to obey it, and obey it as God intended, rather than just the letter of the law...
Josh, have you read Psalm 119? Please read it tonight and let me know if you might want to retract your statement!
Regards
cyberjosh
Member
francisdesales said:
Good heavens Joe, don't freak out! I was only parroting that Paul himself said, "The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more (Romans 5:20). Galatians also gives us a glimpse of this:
"19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
....
22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
...
24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. " (Galatians 3:19, 22, 24).
Did it not occur to you that I might have been refering to Romans 5:20, or did you just forget that Romans 5:20 said that? Or perhaps was this all just a big misunderstanding?
God Bless,
~Josh
cyberjosh
Member
I was talking about dedication to one's Church, not its authority. But to answer the "why" question:
Anarchy? Responsibility? Ever heard of being faithful or dedicated? In fact I heard a great sermon by a Pastor once about how selfish it is to leave every Church that offends you or doesn't satisfy you any more, because you don't want to go through the suffering with your brothers and sisters or confront any issues. Your question about authority was the same one I asked here and in my "Paradox" thread (see there), but I said that obviously one must first be dedicated to your home Church, unless the Spirit expressly tells you to dissent (which often leads to Church splits - as I said). God may want you to stay in the Church to actually help it out of a bond, don't get in mindset of thinking how the Church should serve you. Sometimes God calls you to a torn Church in order to suffer with it for its healing (to no personal benefit of your own - this is self-sacrifice). If we left every Church that didn't satisfy us then I'd hate to see what one's marriage would look like, for every unhappy moment would lead us to want divorce. Do you now see my point of first being faithful to your Church? The idea wasn't authority when I said that, but rather that you should first be faithful to your home Church unless God tells you to leave. As Francis said, "windows shopping" for Churches is the wrong mindset.
God Bless,
~Josh
U
unred typo
Guest
Where does the Bible talk about believers meeting as an organized assembly that builds a meeting house and hires a pastor in the first place? Why do we need such a structured organization? As near as I can see, deacons were selected to oversee the distribution of the funds collected to sustain widows and the needy and to send gifts to poorer or more persecuted believers in other areas. When Paul wrote to the church in Rome, he was writing to believers who met in private houses and in home groups to exhort one another to love and good works, to share their gifts of prophesies, healing and teaching and to tell stories of how God was working in their lives, to break bread and serve wine to remember the Lord’s death and sing psalms and hymns. All believers were considered part of the body of Christ. A church was not a building or a place to go but a group of people who loved Jesus and followed his teaching and encouraged others to do the same. What's wrong with that?
francisdesales
Member
cybershark5886 said:
ARRRGGGGGHHHHH!
OK, I'm done freakin out...
I think Paul meant that because of the Law, we now KNOW we are sinning. Without a Law, we are not aware that we were sinning. When God revealed His will through the Decalogue, disobedience to it was sinful, more serious because now, the Jews were aware of it. Thus, "transgressions increased" only in terms of our knowledge that the Jews continued to disobey God despite knowing God's Will.
I can hardly subscribe to the idea that God gave the Law to mankind for the purpose of increasing sin! Think about that for a minute Josh!
That is hardly the manner of how the Law is regarded in the OT, especially the Psalms. The Law is a wonderful tool to know God's will, and the Psalmist prays for wisdom to FOLLOW God's will as expressed by the Law. I think twisting Romans 5 has caused you to look at the Law in a bad way. Look at how other writers regard the Law.
Your assignment tonight - read Psalm 119, or at least 20 verses... Do you see the sacred author thought that the Law was the cause of sin or transgressions? It is disobedience to this now-present Law that makes sin "increase".
Regards
cyberjosh
Member
Without writing a narrative on Pauline theology, Paul speaks about how without the law no one knew was sin was, but that the law thus came in for a reason: to show the need for a Savior. But there is a catch, because for the creature to know it is sinful it must see its inability to be righteous, thus the purpose of the law: which causes men to sin. Yes you heard me right. Not as puppets but the law inexplicably draws (tempts) one to break it, as Paul said, "I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET" (Romans 7:7). But then in the next verse he says sin taking opportunity by the commandment decieved him and drew him into sinning because of the law. Also note what Paul says as to transgression and the law: "for where there is no law there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15). Luckily though God "overlooked the times of ignorance" (Acts 17:30). But the law served two purposes which are in fact one (but different aspects): (1) To increase our transgression (Romans 5:20) and thus (2) to point to Christ.
This 1st idea is no more repulsive than the statement, "For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all" (Romans 11:32) and the parallel passage "But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe" (Galatians 3:22). Paul said, "apart from the Law sin is dead" (Romans 7:8). Thus is makes supreme sense when Paul says, "The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more (Romans 5:20).
"Pure foolishness!" you might say. But I thank my God: "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen" (1 Corinthians 1:27-28). Does even the Fall make earthly sense to man as part of God's redemption? No it does not, not to fleshly apprehension. Yet God used sin and the Fall to accomplish our redemption. This is the true paradox of redemption.
I shall conclude with this, to handle any concerns: "What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law" (Romans 7:7). The law is not sin nor sinful, but rather perfect & good (1 Timothy 1:8), and accounted for a righteousness we could not attain. It came in not to increase our righteousness for it is useless to save in such a way, but rather to increase sin to show the substance of sin "so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful" (Romans 7:13) and thus point to its remedy: Jesus Christ.
God Bless,
~Josh
This 1st idea is no more repulsive than the statement, "For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all" (Romans 11:32) and the parallel passage "But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe" (Galatians 3:22). Paul said, "apart from the Law sin is dead" (Romans 7:8). Thus is makes supreme sense when Paul says, "The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more (Romans 5:20).
"Pure foolishness!" you might say. But I thank my God: "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen" (1 Corinthians 1:27-28). Does even the Fall make earthly sense to man as part of God's redemption? No it does not, not to fleshly apprehension. Yet God used sin and the Fall to accomplish our redemption. This is the true paradox of redemption.
I shall conclude with this, to handle any concerns: "What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law" (Romans 7:7). The law is not sin nor sinful, but rather perfect & good (1 Timothy 1:8), and accounted for a righteousness we could not attain. It came in not to increase our righteousness for it is useless to save in such a way, but rather to increase sin to show the substance of sin "so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful" (Romans 7:13) and thus point to its remedy: Jesus Christ.
God Bless,
~Josh
francisdesales
Member
cybershark5886 said:
I disagree that the Law "came into being" to show the need for a Savior.
I think we view our relationship with God differently, resulting in opposed views on such passages that you point out.
Catholics and some Protestants view our relationship with God as a familial one. We are His children, or we are the Bride and He is the Groom. There is a family relationship that transcends your legal definitions. Most Protestants view God's work of salvation as a legal transaction, a debt paid to ... someone. As a result, your view of the Law is skewed from the start. Since you think only of the legal aspect, God merely has worked some sort of legal "imputation" of righteousness to us. We really aren't righteous, but the "someone" who God "owes" this legal action to will be "satisfied". Thus, the Law is merely a legal document that God tosses before man to say "see, I told you so, you are worthless". THAT is not the sort of relationship that exists between God and man, in our opinion...
You didn't do your homework. There are NUMEROUS Scripture quotes that discuss how GREAT the Law is, how it brings us close to God, how it is to be followed, etc...
Just a small sampling:
Blessed [are] the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD. Blessed [are] they that keep his testimonies, [and that] seek him with the whole heart. They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways. Thou hast commanded [us] to keep thy precepts diligently. Psalms 119:1-4
You hang your hat on a couple of misinterpreted verses, while the Bible SCREAMS of God's Law and how we are to follow it.
Paul looks at things from a different angle. If you read the end of Romans 7, he tells us that there are TWO laws working inside of man. The spiritual and the fleshy urges. Even WITH the written law, the Jewish man STILL has urges to follow the way of the flesh. And when we KNOW the written law, the sin is GREATER because we KNOW the Will of God but do not DO the will of God. We are all the more guilty because of our knowledge.
Jesus came to fulfill the Law. In other words, to enable us to PERFORM it! Even the spiritual meaning of the Law, as He describes in Matthew 5, going BEYOND what Moses wrote regarding marriage, murder, and love of neighbor.
cybershark5886 said:
Again, read Romans 7 to the end. The written Law is a "problem" because of the war within us that remains unresolved UNTIL Romans 8 - the Holy Spirit. Knowledge of sin is worse than being merely ignorant and committing the deed. It is agony to the holy person to know the Law and STILL falter at times.
Thus, Paul writes
I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Rom 7:7
Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Rom 7:12
Your interpretation is incorrect. If the Law is holy, just and good, how is it a device given by God to man to FURTHER sin???
This seems to be a MAJOR problem of contradiction. Paul writes that merely HAVING the written law is not enough. He notes human psychology - we are tempted and fight mightily to try to obey this law. Having the Law is not enough, because it doesn't give the power to obey it. ONLY GOD'S SPIRIT give anyone the power to obey the law. Try to remember who Paul is writing against - Judaizers who thought that mere POSSESSION of the Law made them favored in God's eyes... Paul refutes that at the end of Romans 2 all the way to Romans 7.
cybershark5886 said:
Paul is trying to explain the cognitive dissonance of the Jews not becoming Christians. It should be obvious that Paul was "disconcerted" that his co-religionists were also not becoming Christians. His explanation was his attempt to show that it was part of God's plan, even though it didn't make sense at the time.
cybershark5886 said:
You take Scriptures and jump to conclusions and say "we could not attain righteousness". Even the Jews didn't believe they could attain righteousness BY THEMSELVES. In Christ, however, we CAN BECOME righteous.
Unfortunately, you believe that the Law was given to prove how lowly we are. This is not the actions of a loving Father. Would you smash your little kid into the ground to show how much better in football you were than your 4 year old kid???? Ridiculous.
God is a God of Love, not a spiteful God or One who needs to show He is better than us. For heavens sake, HE DIED ON A CROSS! Of all the ways to save us, HE CHOSE to die in that manner. And you tell me that He gave us the Law so that we would be even deeper in sin?
The Bible clearly tells us that men CAN be righteous in God's eyes. We are even told that we MUST have righteousness, one that exceeds that of the Pharisees. (Mat 5:20). Jesus said that - and NEVER ONCE mentions anything about HIS righteousness "covering" us up. That legal interpretation of the work of Christ is NOT mentioned by Jesus even ONE time, that I am aware of...
Regards