Culture Rise of Atheism and the Folly of Letting Commoners Interpret the Bible

[Scottty]

We both read the same passage, but we got different meanings out of it, Scottty. Either one of us is right, or neither of us is right. How is "reading comprehension" going to magically get us to the correct passage? Unless you mean something different by that phrase.

Let's try this from another tack. What do you understand that passage to be describing as having happened?
I say it's about the Gospel being preached to a representative of the Ethiopian Jewish community. And you?

 

[The Name of Love]

Let's try this from another tack. What do you understand that passage to be describing as having happened?
I say it's about the Gospel being preached to a representative of the Ethiopian Jewish community. And you?

The same. However, the way the narrative is structured demonstrates a commonsense truth: that people can't truly understand Scripture without someone who can instruct them.

 

[Bigking321]

The same. However, the way the narrative is structured demonstrates a commonsense truth: that people can't truly understand Scripture without someone who can instruct them.

Sorry to jump in the middle of the discussion. Just finished reading the thread.

But I kinda disagree with what you're saying here.

On the one hand, it is incredibly wonderful to have a well educated person in charge of the congregation that has studied the Bible most of their life and is willing to help or guide their community in its study.

But on the other hand I in no way feel that it's a necessity to have that. A person can come to Jesus several ways, from just reading the Bible, meeting a missionary, visiting a church. Nothing requires someone interpreting the Bible for you.

Is that a fantastic bonus? Yes, absolutely.

But you could leave some random person in a room with a Bible and end up with a perfectly valid conversion to Christianity if their open to it.

Again, apologies for jumping in here.

You guys were having a interesting discussion but I felt pretty strongly about this specific part of it.

 

[The Name of Love]

Sorry to jump in the middle of the discussion. Just finished reading the thread.

But I kinda disagree with what you're saying here.

That's fine. You're free to disagree with me.

On the one hand, it is incredibly wonderful to have a well educated person in charge of the congregation that has studied the Bible most of their life and is willing to help or guide their community in its study.

But on the other hand I in no way feel that it's a necessity to have that. A person can come to Jesus several ways, from just reading the Bible, meeting a missionary, visiting a church. Nothing requires someone interpreting the Bible for you.

Is that a fantastic bonus? Yes, absolutely.

But you could leave some random person in a room with a Bible and end up with a perfectly valid conversion to Christianity if their open to it.

Well, here's the thing: I don't think the average Christian needs to have the nuts and bolts down because the average person shouldn't have to constantly question their beliefs, constantly study. Yes, the contemplative life is superior to the practical life, but most people just can't have a life of contemplation. They have to work to make a living! So there's going to be a division of labor. There will be some people who dedicate their life to this stuff, and they'll be the guys in charge of the institution of the church, and there will be followers who will be members of the congregation.

Now, we all agree as Christians that Scripture is materially sufficient for the Salvation of the human person (that is to say, we all believe that all of the doctrines of Christianity can be found, however remotely, in Scripture). However, there are three things that Scripture Alone cannot resolve by its very nature as a text: 1) Scripture alone cannot give us an idea of what counts as Scripture, 2) Scripture alone cannot interpret itself, and 3) Scripture alone cannot give proper application of its lessons in the modern day. These problems (what counts as canon, what counts as proper interpretation, and what counts as proper application) aren't unique to the Bible, but are involved in almost all forms of communication, especially the written word. This is what modern analytic philosophers call "semantic indeterminacy."

Now, we can talk about Death of the Author and how any given human writer may not know the full implications of whatever they write (I certainly subscribe to the theory), but with the Bible, we want to know what the original author (The Holy Spirit working through the writers of the various books) meant by the text. Otherwise, how can we know if what we're worshiping is the one true God? This is the main problem I have with Protestants. They tend to regard only the text itself as infallible. But a text cannot read itself for the reasons I gave above, so the Protestants have to rely on fallible, extra-scriptural premises in order to interpret their works, and this inevitably leads to error. Hence, you have massive disagreements among believers of Sola Scriptura on issues like the Trinity, the Incarnation, justification, transubstantiation, contraception, divorce and remarriage, Sunday observance, infant baptism, slavery, pacifism, the consistency of scripture with scientific claims, etc. If you disregard the need for an infallible interpreter, then you cannot have a binding doctrine on these issues, and there's no "orthodox" position.

Now, given this, how can one get beyond this veil of indeterminacy to arrive at objective truth? The way to do so is realizing that words have no meaning in themselves; rather, language is a tool used by people to communicate with one another. When you talk, you talk with persons, not words. Divine Revelation is a form of communication, one between God and His worshiper. So, if you have problems with understanding what God is saying, you would ask God (much like how you'd ask a human author for clarification for what he meant by some sentence he wrote). More often than not, the God of the Bible used human intermediaries (prophets) to communicate to us, so that's a pretty good place to start. Problem is, people die. They may write or speak, but once they're gone, all we have left are remembered or written words, and where those words are unclear, we're unable to ask for clarification. Now, God could miraculously extend the life of a prophet so that he could survive and and clarify what God meant indefinitely, but He hasn't done this. God could also send a series of prophets, each one succeeded by another, but He hasn't done that either. So, what's left?

The Scholastic philosophers have the answer. Their philosophy makes a distinction between natural persons (or "physical persons") and moral persons (or "juridical persons"). Natural persons are individual human beings - you, me, Scottty, and whoever else. A moral person is a society of human beings organized in such a way that they have a common end and some of the rights and duties that human beings have, like the United States Government. Much of Western philosophy is based on this very distinction. It's why states and corporations have certain rights that they can claim against individual human beings and against other moral persons, have duties to other persons whether natural or moral, can carry out policies which are said to express their will, and, most importantly for our purposes, communicate.

And that's what we believe that Christ was doing on Earth. When He ascended into Heaven, He left behind a Church, not a Bible. Yes, a moral person can make mistakes just like a natural person can; just as Moses lost his temper at times or Peter sometimes lost his nerve, so too might the Church make mistakes of this sort. But as with a prophet or apostle, it will suffice if this moral person really is infallible when it claims to be teaching infallibly, even if it is not infallible when it doesn’t claim to be teaching infallibly in the first place. And this is the Catholic position on the Church. This propaganda about how Catholics can't actually justify their own traditions through Scripture is just question-begging on the part of Protestants. The only logical way to oppose the teaching is to prove that Catholicism wasn't the religion that Christ founded, which relies on extra-scriptural arguments. People like Martin Luther or John Calvin or Dennis Bennett can't just announce that their beliefs are orthodox Christianity just because they have a Bible and an opinion.

I hope this answers your questions. And maybe @Scottty could learn a little something, eh? I'd like to hear what his thoughts are on this.

Again, apologies for jumping in here.

You guys were having a interesting discussion but I felt pretty strongly about this specific part of it.

No need for apologizing. You did nothing wrong.

 

[almostinsane]

Peter was the leader of the Jerusalem church, yes. But he never behaved as if he believed himself to have the sort of authority that the Roman Catholics claim for their popes. Peter had to justify his actions to the other apostles. But yes, they decided some things in councils - not with one "infallible" leader.

Taking the Acts out of the Apostles, yes, you can make that conclusion. However, the Acts of the Apostles is meant to be read with the Gospels, particularly the Gospel of Luke as both books were written by the same person. In the Gospels, it is Peter whom Jesus refers to as the "Rock upon which I shall build my Church". He doesn't say, "I shall build my first church upon you" or "I shall build the Church of Jerusalem on you". He refers to His Church in the singular form. It is Peter who questions Jesus on behalf of the Apostles. It is Peter who announces the anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. He also says to him in Luke 22: 31-32 that He had prayed for him and instructed him to in turn strengthen his brothers after "he had turned back".

Furthermore, to deny the Primacy of Peter is to claim that the Church as a whole was corrupted or ceased to exist shortly after the Apostolic Age. As early as 180 AD, St. Irenaeus wrote:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

Did God then permit the Gates of Hell to prevail against the Church even at that point? Or was it the Council of Nicaea where Arianism was condemned? Or was it the Council of Chalcedon where Pope Leo I's Tome of Leo was discussed and its views adopted, namely that Two Natures existed within Christ without division, i.e. the Hypostatic Union.

One problem Protestantism has is that it accepts as true certain traditions of the Church, but then spits out traditions it doesn't right in the name of being true to the Bible. The Council of Chalcedon officially defined the exact nature of Christ and it took prayer, discussion, and, ultimately, the teaching authority of the Pope and the Churcch as a whole to assert it. It could not have come about from everyone interpreting the Bible their own way. That gave us Arianism, Nestorianism, and Miaphysitism.

 

[Crow gotta eat]

That gave us Arianism, Nestorianism, and Miaphysitism.

Well, Miaphysitism is actually still around with the Oriental Orthodox Churches, like the Copts, and it has seen some effort to be considered differences in word rather than in belief by the Catholic Church, at least back in 1990. Full communion obviously hasn't been achieved by now, but there has been effort put in just to have it declared "Well, it is just another way of saying it".

"Our Lord Jesus Christ is one, perfect in his humanity and perfect in his divinity – at once consubstantial with the Father in his divinity, and consubstantial with us in his humanity. His humanity is one with his divinity – without change, without commingling, without division and without separation. In the Person of the Eternal Logos Incarnate are united and active in a real and perfect way the divine and human natures, with all their properties, faculties and operations. [...] It is this faith which we both confess. Its content is the same in both communions; in formulating that content in the course of history, however, differences have arisen, in terminology and emphasis. We are convinced that these differences are such as can co-exist in the same communion and therefore need not and should not divide us, especially when we proclaim Him to our brothers and sisters in the world in terms which they can more easily understand." - DOCTRINAL AGREEMENT ON CHRISTOLOGY APPROVED BY POPE JOHN PAUL II AND CATHOLICOS MAR BASELIUS MARTHOMA MATHEWS I OF THE MALANKARA ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, June 3, 1990

EN

DECLARATION OF THE JOINT INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION BETWEEN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE MALANKARA ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH June 3, 1990 The Joint Interna

www.christianunity.va

Edit: Not sure about any other schisms, but I at least know about that.

 

[Scottty]

Yeah, Nestorianism and Miaphysitism aren't really a rejection of something central to the Gospel the way Arianism is. We all agree that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% human, it's just a squabble about the precise terminology to use. Or it looks that way to me at least.

I'll address the rest of Almostinsane's post when I have some time to focus on it.

 

[Scottty]

Taking the Acts out of the Apostles, yes, you can make that conclusion. However, the Acts of the Apostles is meant to be read with the Gospels, particularly the Gospel of Luke as both books were written by the same person. In the Gospels, it is Peter whom Jesus refers to as the "Rock upon which I shall build my Church". He doesn't say, "I shall build my first church upon you" or "I shall build the Church of Jerusalem on you". He refers to His Church in the singular form. It is Peter who questions Jesus on behalf of the Apostles. It is Peter who announces the anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. He also says to him in Luke 22: 31-32 that He had prayed for him and instructed him to in turn strengthen his brothers after "he had turned back".

Okay, I think what is happening there is that you are allowing how you have been taught to understand those selected verses to skew your understanding of the rest of the New Testament, rather than letting the rest of the New Testament correct and calibrate your understanding of those verses.
Yes, Simon Peter was given special responsibility by Jesus, and we do see him acting as the leader, or at least the spokesman, for the early Jerusalem church. (At least until he seems to have lost his leadership role to James the Just, but that's another story)
The problem is with all the other stuff that Roman Catholicism then wants to hang onto that, reading in a bunch of ideas that are simply not in the text, and which historically we know were only developed centuries later.

Further, those claims about Simon Peter clash very much with much of what the Apostle Paul wrote about his relationship with the original 12 apostles:

Galatians 2:6-10:
But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) —well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.

Peter was the apostle to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles.

Furthermore, to deny the Primacy of Peter is to claim that the Church as a whole was corrupted or ceased to exist shortly after the Apostolic Age. As early as 180 AD, St. Irenaeus wrote:
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

Debating with statements quote-mined from the early "church fathers" is something that I prefer to leave to people more knowledgeable on the subject, but I can point out to you that Irenaeus wrote of the church at Rome, not of the papacy or office of St Peter. It might be that you as a Roman Catholic would conflate those concepts, but you have not shown that Irenaeus would - or that Christians of that era would all have agreed with him.

Let me remind you that Christianity spread in all directions from it's starting point in Jerusalem, not just westward into the Latin-speaking half of the Roman Empire.

Did God then permit the Gates of Hell to prevail against the Church even at that point?

That presupposes a very Roman Catholic interpretation of what that promise by the Lord Jesus about the "gates of Hades" (not "Hell") is supposed to mean. I think I'll start another thread to discuss that. It's a worthy topic in itself.

Or was it the Council of Nicaea where Arianism was condemned? Or was it the Council of Chalcedon where Pope Leo I's Tome of Leo was discussed and its views adopted, namely that Two Natures existed within Christ without division, i.e. the Hypostatic Union.

I'm sure you are aware that none of those big doctrinal controversies in the early centuries was resolved by papal pronouncement. In fact, at one point Steven, bishop of Rome, endorsed the Arian position.
Athanasius did not back down, because he knew that he was right, and that Steven was wrong.

One problem Protestantism has is that it accepts as true certain traditions of the Church, but then spits out traditions it doesn't right in the name of being true to the Bible.

Almost as if we regard the Bible as superior to church tradition, or something...

The Council of Chalcedon officially defined the exact nature of Christ and it took prayer, discussion, and, ultimately, the teaching authority of the Pope and the Church as a whole to assert it. It could not have come about from everyone interpreting the Bible their own way. That gave us Arianism, Nestorianism, and Miaphysitism.

Ever looked where Chalcedon was on a map? Or Nicaea? Those places were a long way from Rome. The idea that the "teaching authority of the Pope" had anything to do with what went on there is anachronistic, to put it mildly.

Anyway, I've met and interacted with real-life Arians, and maybe you have too. They look a bit like Agents from the Matrix movies. And they emphatically do not think or interpret the Bible for themselves. Very much the opposite. They are spoon-fed what to believe, and taught only the parts of Scripture that can be twisted to look as if they support it, by the organization that they are mentally in thrall to. Even their arguments are scripted. No seriously, they have instruction books telling them what to say in response to various questions, how to respond to this, or to that. A friend of mine got hold of some of that stuff and showed it to me. By now you've probably guessed which people I'm talking about.
Getting them out of that cult and back to Trinitarian Christianity requires getting them to start thinking for themselves, and go off the rigid mental paths set out for them by their sect.
(Also to read a proper Bible translation, not one custom-written to support what the people who produced it had already decided to believe.)