I'm guilty of doing it...

Originally posted by josephw
...and so is virtually every Christian I've ever spoken to. That includes folks from any and every denomination, cult or classification you can think of.

So what is it we do you ask? Simple, we say the Word of God, which is contained in a book we call the Bible, means what we think it means to us as individuals. Sure, there are a lot of overlaps, but that ...[text shortened]... re must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

In other words every other Christian has to believe the same as you otherwise they are heretics.

Originally posted by josephw
...and so is virtually every Christian I've ever spoken to. That includes folks from any and every denomination, cult or classification you can think of.

So what is it we do you ask? Simple, we say the Word of God, which is contained in a book we call the Bible, means what we think it means to us as individuals. Sure, there are a lot of overlaps, but that ...[text shortened]... re must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Should we assume that the men who selected and translated the scriptures to other languages, and in some cases from those languages to yet other languages, were "moved by the Holy Ghost"?

How do we decide which translation to follow, when they differ in content? Is there a Word of God that speaks for itself on this issue? Don't we have to admit that we, strongly influenced by our upbringing, do make this choice?

Just asking, don't read these as rhetorical questions.

Originally posted by Rajk999
In other words every other Christian has to believe the same as you otherwise they are heretics.

Another misread old Rajk. Give it another try would you?

Originally posted by Rajk999
In other words every other Christian has to believe the same as you otherwise they are heretics.

You miss the point, its about unity.

John 17:20-23
“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (John 17:20-23 NIV)

A lone ranger free prairie.

Originally posted by josephw
...and so is virtually every Christian I've ever spoken to. That includes folks from any and every denomination, cult or classification you can think of.

So what is it we do you ask? Simple, we say the Word of God, which is contained in a book we call the Bible, means what we think it means to us as individuals. Sure, there are a lot of overlaps, but that ...[text shortened]... re must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

You cannot avoid interpretation, no matter how hard you try. The mere act of reading a block of text starts a chain of thought in your mind - attempting to cull a meaning from the words. If you succeed, it is always an interpretation that is formed.

Originally posted by JS357
Should we assume that the men who selected and translated the scriptures to other languages, and in some cases from those languages to yet other languages, were "moved by the Holy Ghost"?

How do we decide which translation to follow, when they differ in content? Is there a Word of God that speaks for itself on this issue? Don't we have to admit that we, str ...[text shortened]... y our upbringing, do make this choice?

Just asking, don't read these as rhetorical questions.

"Should we assume that the men who selected and translated the scriptures to other languages, and in some cases from those languages to yet other languages, were "moved by the Holy Ghost"?

Do the scriptures say that? No. Then we must conclude that it is the original writers only that were "moved".

How do we decide which translation to follow, when they differ in content.

If I answer that here I'll get tarred and feathered. But there is an answer. A rather good one. Sorry, but I won't go there in this forum. I've stated here before though that I use the KJV. There are some good books on the subject.

Is there a Word of God that speaks for itself on this issue?

Not sure what you mean. But yes, the Word of God itself gives us what we need to know in order to know it's the real thing.

Don't we have to admit that we, strongly influenced by our upbringing, do make this choice?

Psalm 19:7-9 Does this answer your question? Outside of the Word of God truth is problematic.

Originally posted by josephw
...and so is virtually every Christian I've ever spoken to. That includes folks from any and every denomination, cult or classification you can think of.

So what is it we do you ask? Simple, we say the Word of God, which is contained in a book we call the Bible, means what we think it means to us as individuals. Sure, there are a lot of overlaps, but that ...[text shortened]... re must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Hi, Joe.

I’m just thinking out loud, as it were, but my recollection is that the first schisms in the post-apostolic church were over collective (ecclesial) interpretations, not private ones—or, indeed, the question of whether there could be such. I am thinking of the trinitarians (Greek Orthodox/Nicean) versus the non-trinitarians (e.g., the Syriac church). Each side believed that scripture was clear, and the other side just wrong-headed.

The “Great Schism” of 1054—between the Greek east and the Latin west—was mainly over two issues, one theological and one ecclesial. The theological one was the addition of the filioque (the phrase “and the son” in the Nicene creed) by the Latin west, a change that the Greek theologians thought (and think) was unfounded and wrong. However, the Greek church did not hold that the change was heretical, just bad theology; Rome, on the other hand, declared keeping the original Nicene creed (sans the filioque) to be heretical. This raised the ecclesial issue—that of papal supremacy. The Greek church held that the patriarch of Rome had the primacy of “first among equals”, but not any kind of dictatorial (in their view) supremacy.

Luther’s sola scriptura innovation in the 16th century raised the issue of “scripture versus tradition”. Although I grew up Lutheran (and remained so until about the age of 40, when I became an Episcopalian), I think that is a false issue. Luther (and then Zwingli and Calvin, etc.) were, in fact, starting a new tradition, with its own scriptural hermeneutics. Nevertheless, I would say that it is out of the ground of the Protestant Reformation that the question of authority for (“proper” ) interpretation really gains traction, with all the subsequent denominational splits.

—Note: In all this, it should be recalled that Luther’s reformation was vis-à-vis the Roman Chruch; and it could be taken that his rejection of tradition was pretty strictly Roman tradition. (Though it’s been a long time since I read any of the history of this stuff.)

There are three foundations of faith in the Anglican (Episcopal) Communion: scripture, tradition and reason. I think that sets up an interesting dialectic, as opposed to dogmatic (in the “technical” sense of that word) authority with regard to scriptural interpretation.* Generally, one might say that Protestantism brought with it a certain “dialectical” movement toward “democratization” –and this shows up in ecclesiastical matters as well, in terms of, for example, the more “episcopal” (small “e” ) churches versus the more congregational churches. And this is why I think the Anglican (an “episcopal”, small “e” church) dialectic is so interesting.

Any appeal for the meaning of the biblical texts to some exegetical authority, is no less “tradition”—or at least “tradition-making”—than appeal to ecumenical councils or the Roman magisterium or the Lutheran Book of Concord or the “elders” of one’s chosen denomination. Of course, some people are wont to claim “inspiration of the Holy Spirit” for whatever understanding of the biblical texts they believe is “clear or obvious”.

At bottom, dogmatic insistence on “what scripture ‘really’ means” can lead all-too-easily to a kind of “thought righteousness”. When the English word “believe” was used to translate the Greek word pisteo, it did not mean “what I think is true” (and, I think, was not a bad, if a bit poetic, translation choice). And so, “what I believe”, in common discourse comes to mean “what I regard as true” or “what I hold as an opinion”. That is not the only word that has changed meaning since the KJV translation of 1611—and I would argue that failure to pay attention to some of those changes, as well as the original languages, has led to actual changes in doctrinal “beliefs”.**

As you know, when I have taken part in debates about scriptural exegesis (Hebrew or Greek, though I am perhaps more proficient—or at least have had, in the past, better resources—in the former), I almost always use a phrase such as “I think” or “it seems to me” or, at most “it seems clear that”—even based on my best effort at study and research.

It’s interesting that, in your quote from Peter, that he seems to be appealing to some tradition—likely early rabbinical tradition, since there was no other tradition established yet, as modified in an ongoing way by some sort of apostolic consensus. And that becomes church tradition. And the churches today are all heirs to changes in that tradition—even among those who deny they are involved in tradition, but rely strictly on scripture.

And so, at bottom, I don’t see it as a tendency toward “private interpretation” that has caused denominational ruptures (whether they are a good thing or a bad thing). I think, rather, it has been disagreements among collective ecclesial bodies as to both the nature of, and the source of, dogmatic authority—a dogmatic authority that each group thinks ought to be binding in order to arrive at some univocal, invariate “divine truth”. It seems to occur to few that “divine truth” might be radically multi-vocal, and hence multifaceted.

____________________________________________________

* And, as I have noted often on here in the past, Jewish tradition is very open hermeneutically, and that openness is supported (some would say demanded) by the nature of the biblical Hebrew itself.

** Blackbeetle has given us some good lessons in the vagaries of the Koine Greek, such that I would be as careful about dogmatizing based on that as I would based on the Hebrew. Perhaps in all such interpretive matters, we should err on the side of “grace” as opposed to “judgment”.

Originally posted by vistesd
Hi, Joe.

I’m just thinking out loud, as it were, but my recollection is that the first schisms in the post-apostolic church were over collective (ecclesial) interpretations, not private ones—or, indeed, the question of whether there could be such. I am thinking of the trinitarians (Greek Orthodox/Nicean) versus the non-trinitarians (e.g., the Syriac chur ...[text shortened]... in all such interpretive matters, we should err on the side of “grace” as opposed to “judgment”.

Short version of my mental meanderings in the previous post:

What SwissGambit said.

Originally posted by Rajk999
In other words every other Christian has to believe the same as you otherwise they are heretics.

Doesn't sound as good when someone else says it, eh?