Private Interpretation of His Word

[His son]

And that is EXACTLY what I believe.

[GoodSamaritan]

<<The church described in the first century did not hold to any denomination that is known today. I have researched the oldest documents including those from church fathers and the term catholic church is used in a generalized term to mean the church in general. Catholicism as we know it today started with Roman Catholicism which started with Constantine. I realize there will be many people here who will debate this and I have found that these forums bring about heat not light.>>

This is completely uninformed. The early Christians were not non-denominational. They were being called 'Catholic' as early as 100 AD. The Catholic Church is the only one that has the direct link to the Apostles. Every priest, deacon, bishop, etc. has been touched, through succession, by an apostle who ordained his successor. Constantine did not start the Church--what he did in 325 was make it legal to practice Christianity, which had been persecuted horribly.

The episcopate (Magisterium) or, if you prefer 'hierarchy', was in place by the time the last Apostle died. So, really, the Catholic Church as we know it today, was already firmly in place by 100 AD.

Now, with regard to personal interpretation of Scripture, i'd say this. Absent a teaching authority, someone given the power to bind and loose and make disciples of all nations, you cannot know the Word of God. This is evidenced by the 33000 protestant denominations that currently exist. This splintering is directly contrary to Jesus' prayer in the Gospel of John for unity among his Church.

If one person interprets a verse as 'A', another person interprets the same one as 'B', and a third person interprets it as 'C', either ONE is right, or they're all wrong.

Peter says no SCripture is a matter of one's own interpretation. So why do we have 33,000 sects interpreting Scripture their own way? Remember in Peter's Epistle where Philip meets the Ethiopian eunuch who is reading the Bible. Philip asks him, 'Do you understand what you are reading?' and the eunuch responds, 'How can I, lest some man show me?. Christ created a Church and gave it authority to make disciples of all nations. The Apostles called the Church the 'pillar of the truth', not Scripture. Paul commands that we 'hold fast to the traditions we have learned either by word or by mouth.' There is one (really two) CHurches that claim apostolic succession--and they weren't created in 300 by some Roman Emperor, but on Pentecost when Peter preached what Christ taught him--the same doctrine that is unchanged even today.

God Be With You All

[Guest charlie]

Good Samaritan, I mostly agree with you. The eastern orthodox (orthodox Catholic) also trace their beginning back to apostolic times. The EO and the RCC were once one and the same. I think the "Church" was referred to as "the way" until around the 6th or 7th century when it commonly became known as the universal (i.e. Catholic) church. Constantine did indeed make it "legal", he didn't invent it.

Either way, I've discovered that there was no need for the restoration movement, the visible Church on earth was already in place, and had survived since the time of Christ, just like He said it would. You have to understand though GS, this is a hard pill for a protestant, especially a fundamentlist, to swallow......which I've spent my spiritual life being. When I came to this realization.... it made me angry, sick physically, and sick at heart. BUT, that's what happens when we truly seek, we sometimes find out things we didn't want to know.

Church history DOES matter. The attempts on the part of some Baptists in recent years to "falsely claim" a link with early Christianity is just one indication to me that even THEY realize this. I apologize for offending anyone by saying that.

[Guest shadow2b]

-Sounds to me like the various denominations are supposed to edify one another in their doctrines, not disagree and argue about private interpretations of various scripture, which according to the previous two verses we shouldn't do anyhow.

-VARIOUS--DENOMINATIONS??ARE TO EDIFY EACH OTHER??-NOT DISAGREE

-OVER DOCTRINE??{various--Interpretations??}

-uhhhhh??-HOW did you come up with this"conclusion??"various denominations are NOT mentioned in these scriptures-sssshhhheeeedsssshhhhh- :x:

-

[GoodSamaritan]

<<Good Samaritan, I mostly agree with you. The eastern orthodox (orthodox Catholic) also trace their beginning back to apostolic times. The EO and the RCC were once one and the same. I think the "Church" was referred to as "the way" until around the 6th or 7th century when it commonly became known as the universal (i.e. Catholic) church. Constantine did indeed make it "legal", he didn't invent it.>>

Our Orthodox brothers indeed have valid sacraments and can trace their lineage directly back to the apostles. In 100 AD, Ignatius of Antioch, a man who grew up during the time of the apostles, was ordained as Bishop of Antioch by Peter himself. On his way to be eaten by the lions at the COliseum, he wrote, "You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows teh Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. "

Jesus prays, in John,

'And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me.

21 That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them: that, they may be one, as we also are one.

In fact, in Acts, the Church was described as 'one in heart and soul' at the time of the Apostles.

<<this is a hard pill for a protestant, especially a fundamentlist, to swallow......which I've spent my spiritual life being. >>

Indeed, being a cradle Catholic who took Christ for granted, i wrestled with things like objective truth, an earthly authority, and whether or not there existed a 'better way'. But i found that when i was genuinely hungry, the nourishment came from the Truth, not in my own intellectual pride. Fulton Sheen once said that there are no more than 100 people in this country that hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they THINK is the Catholic Church. When misconceptions like 'the Church was started in 300' or 'Catholics worship Mary' arise, i can't help but feel obligated to set the record straight.

<<Sounds to me like the various denominations are supposed to edify one another in their doctrines, not disagree and argue about private interpretations of various scripture, which according to the previous two verses we shouldn't do anyhow.>>

If you can show me where the word 'denomination' or 'sect' or 'coexisting faith' exists in the Bible, you'd have a case. The only place that other faiths besides the Church Christ established is mentioned is followed by words like 'anathema' or 'heretic'.

You can't get much clearer than Peter's claim about personal interpretation of SCripture. There may be 'concepts' presented without words (i.e., Trinity, Papacy, etc.) but this point is blunt as can be.

God Bless

GS

[VRSpock]

Peter says no SCripture is a matter of one's own interpretation. So why do we have 33,000 sects interpreting Scripture their own way? Remember in Peter's Epistle where Philip meets the Ethiopian eunuch who is reading the Bible. Philip asks him, 'Do you understand what you are reading?' and the eunuch responds, 'How can I, lest some man show me?. Christ created a Church and gave it authority to make disciples of all nations. The Apostles called the Church the 'pillar of the truth', not Scripture. Paul commands that we 'hold fast to the traditions we have learned either by word or by mouth.' There is one (really two) CHurches that claim apostolic succession--and they weren't created in 300 by some Roman Emperor, but on Pentecost when Peter preached what Christ taught him--the same doctrine that is unchanged even today.

God Be With You All

The reason there are so many denominations is because man is a selfish and imperfect creature. Many church splits are caused by someone committing an act that conflicts with the position they hold within the church, rather than a doctrinal dispute. Rather than everyone focusing on the Word for guidance, personal biases influence whether people stay or go....like weeds in the wind. Scriptures often describe people's characters by calling them trees. It even uses types of trees to describe how deeply rooted they were. This is done repeatedly through out the bible. Christians are not supposed to be weeds easily moved by the wind of changes around them, but firm as an oak tree with their roots deeply planted in the Word of God.

I do not believe that it was Christ's intent to form an institution when he called upon the 12 disciples....a church yes, an institution no. The Jewish Rabbi's of the time had an institution. They had made their own words equal to God's. They were full of pride and arrogance. This was most certainly evident when they denounced Jesus as being the messiah, then proceeded to have him labeled a blasphemer and a heretic which ultimately led to his cruxificion.

Jesus was a rebel against this institution. Everything He taught threatened its authority and power. The church body that He formed was one of equality. The lepers and the blind were equal to everyone else in Jesus's eyes. All were equal with the potential to exhibit understanding and authority in the Word and equal with the potential to exhibit misunderstanding and cast confusion. Even most if not all of the 12 apostle's filled with doubt in His Word in less than 3 days between His death and resurrection.

To know Him is to have a personal relationship with Him. When people sit in the pulpit once, twice or three times a week or more and absorb the Word from someone else like a sponge absorbing water, their walk with Christ is not deeply rooted. Just as a sponge can easily have all it's water squeezed out of it, so too can a person who's relationship with Christ is based soley on such works have their closeness with Christ squeezed right out of them by circumstances around them.

In order to have the deep roots of an oak tree in His Word, we must pro-actively eat of his living water, which is the Word. When we eat of His Word as a tree gathering water through its roots, rather than absorb it as a sponge, it is digested by our hearts and minds and cannot be so easily squeezed from us. We do not become weeds tossed in the winds by all those things of this world that try to challenge His Word. Nor do we become as squeezed sponges that have dried up and are blown away by the same wind.

In an institution void of His spirit people absorb the Word like a sponge. In a church filled with His spirit, people eat of the Word like a tree cosuming water. There are many in churches of all denominations today who are not eating of His Word and are merely sponges or weeds in Christ. Through the edification mentioned in 1st Corinthians 14:26, I believe those that are sponges and weeds can grow into trees spiritually as the understanding of His Word is made clear through the constant studying of scriptures by the church body. That body being open to all of us willing to humble ourselves to the understanding and wisdom of His Word and not just a select group who claim apostolic authority.

[GoodSamaritan]

I do not believe that it was Christ's intent to form an institution when he called upon the 12 disciples....a church yes, an institution no.

So are you saying that the Apostles got it wrong? For they indeed set up an Institution with a hierarchy, doctrinal rules, and a deference to Peter for issues of faith and morals. If you deny that Christ intended to create an Institution, you deny the work of the Apostles and their successors since the Instiution was in place by 110 AD or so. They commanded that their successors guard the Tradition and Church they themselves had set up.

1 Peter 2:13 shows Peter and Paul saying: "For the sake of the Lord, accept the authority of every human instiution.' Jesus did not incite people to defy Roman authority or even Jewish authority. His apostles, therefore, followed his teaching with the above.

Clement, a bishop, in 90 AD, while there were still Apostles alive, wrote:

"Let us then serve in OUR army, brethren...Let us consider those who serve as our generals. Not all are prefects, nor tribunes, nor centurions, nor commanders, or the like, but each carries out his own rank the commands of the emperor and his generals."

Here, he was clearly using the Roman model (hierarchical institution) as what the Church of Christ was and would be.

To say he created a Church in which Peter was equal to a new convert is incorrect. For Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of God and power to bind and loose. Nowhere did he give ordinary Jewish converts or Gentiles this power. I see your point about the principle of equality--indeed, Paul said we must all work out our salvation in fear and trembling, be it bishops or newly baptized converts. Salvation is the same for all, and in this respect, we're equal. But in terms of the Church that Jesus created, he made it clear that the power was given to the apostles and that they were to 'make disciples of all nations and baptize them.'. He intended his Church to be a visible sign of Him--'set high on a hill for all to see', and the apostles were its' most visible earthly sign.

<<The Jewish Rabbi's of the time had an institution. They had made their own words equal to God's. They were full of pride and arrogance. This was most certainly evident when they denounced Jesus as being the messiah, then proceeded to have him labeled a blasphemer and a heretic which ultimately led to his cruxificion.

Jesus was a rebel against this institution. Everything He taught threatened its authority and power. >>

I'd have to disagree. Jesus was against the HYPOCRISY of the people in the Institution, not the Institution itself. In fact, in Mt 23, he says, "The teachers of the Law and Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses. Obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.'

The apostles established a Church to do what Jesus had commanded them. Paul says in 2 Thessalonians to 'hold firm to these traditions which you received from us either by word or by letter.'

God Bless You

GS

[VRSpock]

I do not believe that it was Christ's intent to form an institution when he called upon the 12 disciples....a church yes, an institution no.

So are you saying that the Apostles got it wrong? For they indeed set up an Institution with a hierarchy, doctrinal rules, and a deference to Peter for issues of faith and morals. If you deny that Christ intended to create an Institution, you deny the work of the Apostles and their successors since the Instiution was in place by 110 AD or so. They commanded that their successors guard the Tradition and Church they themselves had set up.

Edited June 11, 2004 by vrspock

[GoodSamaritan]

However, when that structure becomes more authoritative than the Word itself, that's when I have an issue with it. It is no longer Christianity then, it is a religion...and there is a difference.

Can you give an example?

Jesus did not incite a rebillion, but His teachings most certainly threatend the power of the authority of the time for it called for people to only have one master: His Word, at the sake of the Jewish authority. Jesus broke many Jewish laws during His time here

Actually, he FULFILLED Jewish laws, they just couldn't see this. And in turn, the Apostles, with their newly formed Church, threatened Jewish and Roman authority further. The Church has, for 2000 years, challenged and threatened the authority of secular powers. Even today, it holds true to doctrine like the intrinsic evil of contraception in the light of secular groups and Protestant groups denying this doctrine.

It is the trees (or spiritual leaders) that we seek assistance from in the understanding of His word, however, we cannot lean to heavily on them for even a tree can fall.

I disagree. Jesus said he'd build his Church on the Apostles and that the gates of Hell would never prevail against it. Timothy calls the Church 'the pillar and foundation of the Truth'. It's a foundation and PILLAR--trees may fall but Christ's foundation and pillar will not.

We are truley blessed to have forums such as these where we can all meet on equal terms and share our various understandings of His Word so that we may better reach for the true meaning of His Word.

Amen! Never forget that there are Christians in places like Sudan that are being martyred for Christ. Puts a little message board spat into perspective, doesn't it?

[Guest Strservant]

However, when that structure becomes more authoritative than the Word itself, that's when I have an issue with it. It is no longer Christianity then, it is a religion...and there is a difference.

Can you give an example?

Jesus did not incite a rebillion, but His teachings most certainly threatend the power of the authority of the time for it called for people to only have one master: His Word, at the sake of the Jewish authority. Jesus broke many Jewish laws during His time here

Actually, he FULFILLED Jewish laws, they just couldn't see this. And in turn, the Apostles, with their newly formed Church, threatened Jewish and Roman authority further. The Church has, for 2000 years, challenged and threatened the authority of secular powers. Even today, it holds true to doctrine like the intrinsic evil of contraception in the light of secular groups and Protestant groups denying this doctrine.

It is the trees (or spiritual leaders) that we seek assistance from in the understanding of His word, however, we cannot lean to heavily on them for even a tree can fall.

I disagree. Jesus said he'd build his Church on the Apostles and that the gates of Hell would never prevail against it. Timothy calls the Church 'the pillar and foundation of the Truth'. It's a foundation and PILLAR--trees may fall but Christ's foundation and pillar will not.

We are truley blessed to have forums such as these where we can all meet on equal terms and share our various understandings of His Word so that we may better reach for the true meaning of His Word.

Amen! Never forget that there are Christians in places like Sudan that are being martyred for Christ. Puts a little message board spat into perspective, doesn't it?

Good Samaritan,

We will simply agree to disagree.

I will say this though, anyone who tries to trace their origins all the way back to the apostles just wants everyone to have to bow down to their "denomination" or "orginazation". This is just the attitude that divides people today. To say that the only true church is the Catholic Church is to take us back to the Pharisees and Saducees. The veil in the temple was rent from top to bottom signifying that we do not need anyother human to be a go between between us and God, Jesus does that better than any priest can. There are several "doctrines" that the RCC holds to that I could never hold to and to say that anyone that is not aligned with the RCC is not in the true church is irresponsible. Let me also be quick to say that any denomination or organization that says that is being irresponsible also. Not trying to pick on Catholics here just mentioned them because you named them as a church that could.

Once again, I won't debate this further because neither of us are going to change our minds and there is no sense typing 600 pages for everyone to have to read. We can just agree to disagree. At least that way we agree on something.

Respectfully,

Strservant