Cybrweez wrote:Here is a universal principle: No authority, secular or religious, is to be obeyed except as it administers God's Word. Who is to decide? That is the crux of the issue. The individual, who will be held accountable by God, must decide for himself/herself on the basis of God's Word. All teaching, whether by evangelist, pastor, priest or pope, must be judged and rejected by each individual if not in agreement with God's Word.
Is that not what it means to be a Berean? "These [in Berea] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11). The Bereans checked the great Apostle Paul's teaching against the Old Testament (all they had) to see whether he was biblical. Each Berean was personally responsible to make that judgment and act upon it.
It's likely that some Bereans discussed the matter together. There is not a hint, however, that a "committee" of Bereans or some spiritual hierarchy decided for the rest whether Paul's teachings were biblical. Note that Paul's authority as the chief apostle who wrote most of the epistles did not procure automatic acceptance of what he taught. Nor did he direct the Bereans to some church authority in Jerusalem or in Rome that would decide for them.
Three things are clear: 1) each Berean studied the Bible for himself; 2) each Berean was capable, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, of understanding the Bible; and 3) on the basis of whether he or she believed it to be biblical, each Berean made a personal decision to accept or reject Paul's teaching—and was commended for doing so. We must be Bereans in our day.
I see the need for individual interpretation, even in EO. You rus, once decided it was the True Church.
You decided it was the True Church, and then allowed it to determine all dogma. But it still started w/your interpretation.
Hi, Andy!
I think the idea you are expressing is that everybody makes personal choices based on their understandings of the world. Agreed.
However, I'm talking about how one is to understand an ancient text, written as long as 3,000 years ago in languages and cultures (with their assumptions) that are far different from today's.
As to your quote, it's source is, of course, an SS website, with corresponding interpretation of one particular Scriptural text - and quite a brief one, at that!
On the three things that are supposedly clear, the 3rd I admit out of hand. Of course, a decision to accept faith - or any view is always personal - this is not related to the idea of individual ability to correctly understand ancient texts. The first is also admitted. There is no wrong, and much good in studying Holy Scripture.
But what we don't do is develop theology on our own understandings, which we are all bound to have.
So the Bereans looked to see if the Scripture said what Paul said it did. Logical. And their understanding, both in terms of space and time, was far less removed than it is today. I would say that a first-century Christian of the Middle East would have practically no difficulty correctly understanding the language and context of a 1st-century writing. I say that WE have enormous difficulty in doing so - not always and necessarily in each individual statement (where there are such things), but certainly when it comes to forming theology. The only theology likely to be correct is one that has continually understood it correctly from the beginning. (A theology may develop understandings, but it may not actually change if it is true.) Otherwise, you are counting on wild coincidence to be able to determine whether Jesus was fully Man and fully God, whether He was begotten of the Father before all ages, whether Jesus had brothers in the English sense of the word or not, (ie, whether Mary remained a Virgin and whether that is important or not), etc etc etc.
So the first part of point 2 is admitted - but not for the reason supposed. There is no basis to assume that the Holy Spirit inspires everybody who reads Scripture to understand it correctly, and every basis for supposing that this is not the case. Nor is there a statement that the Bereans were inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so. This is simply inserted by people who of necessity must believe that their own personal reading is indeed inspired of God - for what authority to correctly understand all this AND correctly form theology could they otherwise claim?
The divisions of Christianity today alone are proof that an enormous number of Christians are not in fact lead by the Holy Spirit into common truth, but into...division. Ergo, the authority on which they base their sincere understandings of what they read is that of the individual - ie, themselves.
Don't get me wrong - I think it much better to be a Christian - of nearly any type - than anything else. I also have great respect for apologetics of other Christian faiths (well, some of them, anyway); whether it be Peter Kreeft, NT Wright, or whoever (today) I think there is much truth in what they say, and a lot of correct understanding of Scripture. But my own travels around the world and associated language learning convinced me of the enormous difficulties of translation - especially when theology depends on translation, and of the general impossibility of individual understandings leading to correct theology. They must reference a given tradition - they must always have done so, so a theology that begins in the 17th or 19th century is already 99.99% certain to be off base. Otherwise, we'd have to admit the potential legitimacy of all modern claims (such as the Mormons).
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." Bill Hingest ("That Hideous Strength" by C.S. Lewis)
"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
