By what authority do we interpret scripture?

Laugh if you wish, the Greek does not lie. Word means that which was spoken.

The Apostles went out and taught. There was no Bible to teach from. All the Apostles were scattered after the Council of Jerusalem. John preached the Gospel for nearly 60 years without scripture to fall back on.

Most of Pauls writing are date to a few years before his death which is 33 to 34 years after the ascension of Christ.

If one were to combine the 4 Gospels into one account leaving out nothing a do a play based on it. You would only have 2 hours Jesus teaching and doing.

2 hours out of a 3 year ministry.

John's last statement in his Gospel is a gross understatement:

It only takes 1 second for Tradition to develop. People are stuck with the modern day defiinition of Tradition.

Argue against the Greek word for Tradition:

G3862
παράδοσις
paradosis
par-ad'-os-is
From G3860; transmission, that is, (concretely) a precept; specifically the Jewish traditionary law: - ordinance, tradition.

 

It was not an understatement.
It has been 2,000 years now. Books are still being written about Christ, so many that the world cannot keep track of them and the libraries of the world cannot hold all the books that are written about him.

Absurd! but if you like to think that black is white and oranges are apples go right ahead.

That is quite a different definition than the Catholic definition isn't it? It is more in line with a Biblical definition, like the one I gave you.
The tradition being spoken of was the transmission of a precept (truth);
or an ordinance (commandment) such as the Lord's Supper or baptism.
Cities have ordinances. The word means commands or laws. Both the precepts and the ordinances were the truths and laws of the NT, the revelation that Paul had received personally from Christ, as well as what was written down in the many books already written before he had written this epistle. This epistle was not the first epistle to be written, and certainly Matthew was written long before this.

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

At the time of Peter's writing, Peter recognized the epistles of Paul as Scripture. The Apostles were able to recognize which epistles were Scripture and which were not.
DHK

 

And also the fact that in one of these references to "tradition": (2 Thess. 3:6): "keep away from any brother who is living in idleness". "living in idleness" is what is contrasted with "the traditions". And other scriptures speak against this as well. This agrees with the definition "transmission". Why read something else into it? Absolutely nothing there about "purgatory, praying to the saints in heaven, honoring Mary, celebrating Mass, the need for baptism, the ordained priesthood, honoring and obeying St Peter's successor, mortal sin, etc." All of this stuff is assumed to be what those three verses are rererring to just because some second and third century leaders mentioned them, and even some of their references are vague. That is taken as a "consensus", and then read back to the verses by defining "tradition" as "unwritten consensus". Sorry, but that is not a strong enough case.

Do you notice that both of the remaining "catholicism" advocates started off under the premise of being from Protestant or non-Catholic churches, and simply "searching", but both seem to have their minds pretty much made up in favor of Catholic/Orthodox theology!

 

At what is now I Timothy 5:18 God through Paul wrote “For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his hire” (ASV). The first quote of “the scripture” here is from Deuteronomy 25:4, and the second is from Luke 10:7.6 Compare the Greek:
Luke 10:7 αζιος γαρ ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου
1 Timothy 5:18 αζιος ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου
an exact match minus omission of γαρ = "for," which was a grammatical adjustment.

Scripture in New Testament times seemed to at least include Luke-Acts, which is typically dated to c. 62 C.E.. Too much of a `coincidence' for me to accept it as a coincidence.

You added emphasis to my post without note. However, had this general New Testament church precept been followed, this specific problem would not have occured. This is why I quoted it; no person's opinion matches the authority of Scripture.

The Greek: το μη υπερ α γεγραπται
This is literal word by word: το = “the,” μη = “not,” υπερ = “beyond,” α = “what,” γεγραπται = “has been written.”
McReynolds, Word Study Greek-English New Testament, page 603.
It was a named New Testament church precept. To this, only the part I quoted was relevant, and I wanted no distractions.

You are not in a position to question my integrity.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=859468&postcount=18 -- brutal anti-Semitic remarks.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=33779 -- sardonic.
No apology was ever issued for either of these very unloving statements that I ever saw, and Matthew 22:37-40 has much to say about what is most important to the Lord. Further, as of today, according to your profile, you are violation of what is explicit at Hebrews 10:24-5 and do not assemble with other Christians. Matthew 7:20 “Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (ASV) also translated “Similarly, you will know people by the deeds they do” (NBV). Hebrews 6:1 says “Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us | press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from |acts that lead to death| and of faith toward God” (NKJV|NASB|ICB|NASB). I do not see you in a position to comment negatively on my Christian attributes, or frankly, qualified to tell most Christians how to improve ourselves. I wish this was not true.

 

And this is the gross red flag throughout Angus Dei's presentation. He interprets scripture according to his paradigm, and states emphatically that each denomination does as well. That being the case, Angus Dei and each denomination cannot be anything other than in error, some in whole, others in part. The mind of man cannot begin to understand Holy Writ. We, however, have the spiritual discernment, the wisdom, understanding, and insight of Christ, if in fact we are born again and decline to participate in mental gymnastics, knowing fully that all scripture is spiritually discerned. We enter into spiritual communication, in Jesus, in the power of the Holy Spirit, right up to the Throneroom of God, through prayer and meditation upon His Word, leaning not to our own understanding. In that spirit scripture comes alive! :love2:

Greater is He that is in me, than he that is in the world. Non-spiritual paradigms are of the world. End of story. :applause:

 

QUOTE=Agnus_Dei]So there’s a thread floating around entitled “How do we interpret scripture”, but I’d like to expound on that and discuss by what “authority” do we Christians interpret scripture.[/QUOTE]
Christians are given authority to interpret scripture by God with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. What other authority is there?

 

Christians are given authority to interpret scripture by God with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. What other authority is there?[/quote]

Amen!!!
No other authority. Only pagan, whorish people pursue other authority than that from God the Holy Spirit!

 

Amen!:flower:

 

As I was reading through this thread I was reminded of this quote from Newman...

"...if the revelations and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words, is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so systematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is idiomatic and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs obiter, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligation? Such is our natural anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility."

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/miscellaneous/scripture.html

CA

 

HP: Has no one ever heard of logic? It has been stated on this list that logic is not debatable, it is just true. The man that has stated this does not seem to be pagan or whorish. Why could not logic be seen as 'the standard authority' if in fact it is without error and not debatable?

 

HP: Did I hear faith’s death rattle as the sword was thrust through her heart in the last sentence? The gift of infallibility for whom?

 

This is a great thread for discussion, via a brilliant question.

It would appear to me that this is indeed a point of the genius nature of God. He has developed the perfect test of character. He gives to us Scripture, with all its uncertainties and differing possibilities mixed with historical facts. By allowing man to read, study and interpret His Word, even in light of our fallible nature and finite abilities, He is able to divine, via our conclusions ‘by faith’ and the subsequent intents formed in the heart of man, those that honestly love Him. By the means of our interpretation and subsequent intents is our true character exposed to God as an open book.

It reminds me of the talents that were spoken of that were distributed to those men, to take and invest as they seemed fit. Some were wise and invested wisely, while one was too afraid to do anything with the talent he had so he just refused to do anything with it but bury it. There is still one thing all had in common. All had to give an account for their actions in the end.

We ‘all’ have something in common in the way we interpret Scripture. Everyone of us will give an account, just as the stewards did, for the way in which we have handled the Word of God. Whatever one sees as their authority, may it be found to be in accordance to truth when we all stand before Him and give an account.

Until then, we all must of necessity walk simply by faith. Oh Lord, may our hearts be open to the guiding light of the Holy Spirit.

 

HP: Has no one ever heard of logic? It has been stated on this list that logic is not debatable, it is just true. The man that has stated this does not seem to be pagan or whorish. Why could not logic be seen as 'the standard authority' if in fact it is without error and not debatable? [/QUOTE]

Is logic not a man made concept? What is logical for one person may be illogical for another. Are we to discern God's word through logic?
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
When speaking of worldly things (the natural), logic is a good thing, but when we study God's word we are to depend on the super natural (the Holy Spirit). How else can we know God's thoughts?
1 Cor. 2:16 For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.
:flower:

 

HP: God has gifted man with certain abilities to think in a logical fashion. If we were devoid of this ability, truth would be impossible to conceive of. We would consist of a maelstrom of unassociated thoughts, with no way to couple them into cohesive cognizant ideas.

Logic means a lot of different things to different individuals. When some think of logic, they think in terms of a system of logic developed by men such as Aristotle. I for one believe that the study of such a man designed system will lead to an over rated opinion of the ability of such a system of logic to render the truth.

One needs to be careful not to conclude that logic always or of necessity works in total sync with any man-developed system, and to understand that truth and logical conclusions from a given premise might not in fact be in agreement. Language is designed to transmit concepts or ideas, not necessarily specific codified conclusions formulated by some system of logic. The scope of language and its purpose will never be held tightly within any such man made system of logic. Many spiritual truths transcend all abilities we posses to divine the truth via a man-developed system of thought, and indeed must be intuited via spiritual means. The very existence of God, the Incarnation, the atonement, and a host of other spiritual ideas dwarf the abilities or possibilities of such a man made system to develop such truths as a result of the exercising of any such system of logic. Although there is truth evident in systems such as Aristotelian logic, we must be aware that it is the Holy Spirit we need and seek to guide us into all truth, not such a man made system.

It has been noted by more than one imminent man, that the study of systems of logic such as Aristotelian logic, expend much valuable time and energy and produce very little real substance in the development of truth. Far too often the import of such study of such systems of logic is overstated. One can scale the utmost heights of man made systems of logic and be devoid of any real spiritual knowledge.

 

In John 16 the Holy Spirit is promised to "LEAD us into all truth" in 1John 2 we are told that "HIS ANNOINTING teaches us". God HIMSELF is our teacher under the New Covenant according to Heb 8.

But some Christians choose to select from the wicked popes and the good popes trying to figure out which one will be "good enough" to serve in the place of the Holy Spirit.

Not something I would recommend.

The Popes of the Catholic church were among the FIRST to rail against fellow Popes calling them "antichrist". The Popes of the Catholic church have been among the most degraded monsters of history - while others have been very saintly. But the result was that you had catholics slaughtering catholics on behalf of their various popes. You had popes ascending by "mob violence" and assassination - by bribery and nepotism. You had every kind of sin and vice known to mankind practiced within popery in the dark ages ALL THE WHILE claiming infallability (if the Papacy of the 19th and 20th centuries is to be believed). Such is the lesson for the world for any organization that would place man in the seat of the Holy Spirit.

in Christ,

Bob

 

RE "...Faith's death rattle..."

I don't think so. Newman was reacting to the situation in his day that saw a proliferation of opinions about what the Bible means on any given subject.

CA