-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Who is The Interpretor of your bible, Church or Holy Spirit?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
You are misinterpreting that text. That text is teaching that the scriptures are not the personal or private interpetations of the Biblical writers but are the words of God himself. Just read the next verse:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For [because] the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Sorry fellas, but I have to get off and attend to other matters. My children and grandchildren just walked through the door. Be back later today or tomorrow.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Just read the text. They accepted Pauls interpretation based on the accuracy of his textual referrences. They could verify what he said by finding it in the word.
ah... Now you are saying what I have always been saying. Paul preached the word or gave his orally teachings (Tradition) with regard to what the written word meant! Therefore scripture is only taken in the context of Pauls oral teaching. (Tradition)
Ah another verse that supports my position! Excellent. They didn't let the people interpret the words for themselves they gave them the meaning (Tradition) of what those words meant! And only by having both the Oral teaching (sence) and the written words (scripture) did the people understand. Scripture wasn't relied on all alone by itself but was interpreted for the people! Traditions and Scripture working hand in hand to rightly divide the word!
Ah yes so you finally undestand that the bible doesn't interpret itself that the person must have some means of intepreting what he's reading. And you hold that what you think a passage means is sufficient to interpret making you and your reason the interpreter of scripture rather than the Holy Spirit!
You prove my point once more.
And you can't agree to a definition of what spiritual is without an intepreting authority! Because the bible doesn't define it for you. You say spiritual means symbolic as in with the Eucharist. Then you say its real with regeneration. You cannot make up your own mind of what that one word means in the scriptural context!
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Funny that according to you only those who agree with you are with the spirit. That is self serving and once again makes your thought greater than God.
You often quote yourself. However, that not what I said you quoted scripture but provided your interpretation making once again your self the sole authority to determine how scripture is rightly divided. Making yourself once agains in position of the Holy Spirit.
Obviously by this statement it can't be because you must manufacture the questions without refering to the text. In other words you establish a false premise and want me to answer it. Wrong.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
No. In actuality all you have demonstrated is that you refuse to incorporate the context of an entire passage and pulls stuff outside of the intended context to make it fit your theology which is based on your thinking which once again makes your intepretation the sole authority once again replacing the Holy Spirit with your own ability.
I absolutely have. Go back two thousand years translate that statement back into Greek and see what the people think of what you mean. You'll find that you confuse them. Because they have no cultural referrence by which they can understand that saying. So it works the other way round.
where? Take the phrase "take the cake" outside of our cultural context and the interpreter will have a diffucult time assertaining its meaning. The world 2,000 years ago no longer exist! Thus you are apply modern thought to text writen in a different world, culture and context.
Exactly my point which is why by using a modern secular context you are having a difficult time properly exegeting scriptural texts. OH wait it spiritual whatever you mean by that.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I thought you held that scriptures interpret themselves. Oh, yeah that only applies when you agree with it. Once again making yourself the sole authority for interpreting scripture. BTW that passage if any passage is pretty clear on the meaning.
Paul had APOSTOLIC authority, so just as the OT prophets, what he said as rearding doctrines/practices and what he wrote was binding, as if Jesus Himself spoke or wrote it!
And the holy Spirit Himself ONLY gave the Apsotles of Yeshua that means to interprete to us in the NT what the OT was really intended to mean, to be fulfilled in the person and ministry of yeshua!
the Holy Spirit Inspired the Apostles to give forth revealtion from God, spoken and written form, while ALL he grants today is to rightly understand what what already done by them...
Church of Rome goes beyond thatm claim authority to be infallible spokesman/interpreator of the scriptures, so that it is 'paul said to you, but Rome says"...
wrong!
peter stated that NO prophet in the OT, nor Apostle who wrote for the lord gave their own answers, but that the Holy Spirit gave them inspired understanding of the sacred texts, and inspired them to have exactly what God meant us to understand !
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Yes that is true. And scripture were understood based on his teaching. They didn't interpret themselves and you could say go to Paul. He can settle this dispute among us. Who can do that now 2,000 years latter. Who can settle a dispute on the meaning of a text between two people?
Yes and as scripture clearly states that Deposit of faith was passed down orally and in writing. (Tradition and Scripture)
,
Yes the whole word of God came in written and oral form.
How? To what authority do you appeal when you differ from another christian? Which was my original question.
The RCC claims to have safe guarded the deposit of Faith that Paul Gave to Timothy and that Timothy passed on to the next generation.
So it is never said "Paul said to you but Rome says" It is always "Paul had said and it has always been taught that..."
YOu are illustrating the very thing I said. You first jerk my words out of their context, remove it from the explanation the text itself gives and then provide this irrational nonsensical conclusion.
The text does intepret itself and that is precisely why I quoted the next verse verbatim merely underlying the contextual self-interpretation of the verse in question.
Your responses are so irrational that it is quite obvious it is a complete waste of time to even respond to you.
apparently you don't know how to do that because you come back READING INTO the text what it clearly does not say - that is called EISGESIS.
Are you not forgetting one little but very significant detail???? These men taught UNDER INSPIRATION AS THEY WERE PROPHETS and YOU are not, Rome is not, the Pope is not, the Cardinals are not, Your bishops are not, your counsels are not - you are totally spiritually bankrupt of any authority to teach or write as Nehemiah, Paul, James, John, ect., so quit making an INSPIRED model YOUR model!
My explanations of scripture is completely based upon what the scriptures themselves SUPPLY - so much for your argument!!!
Yeah, and it is called THE BIBLE!
I have never defined it so how can you make these kind of conclusion? Are you omniscient? When I do define it I will use scripture in its context and in relationship to that context.
Again you pervert and ignore what I actually said. I have answered this objection twice already and twice you simply ignore it and MAKE UP YOUR OWN thoughts and attribute them to me! Not only dishonest but exmemplies the very way you also handle scriptures.
It is the Scriptures themselves that set forth that qualification and I have thoroughly demonstrated by the Biblical context of 1 Cor. 2:14 that your interpetation is irrational and complete nonsense as your interpretation actually contradicts what the text literally asserts (see my notes on your interpretation).
Since the scriptures themselves set forth that qualification then the proper interpretation will harmonize with the Biblical context and YOURS DOES NOT as the text actually and literally says the very opposite to what you interpret it to say.
Think about this, the text says "neither can he know them." Neither is a negative and means CANNOT rather than like your interpretation that denies they cannot.
Think about this, the reason one cannot "know" something is because they must first UNDERSTAND what it takes to KNOW it and they cannot understand unless first they can DISCERN what is being said. The text demands such things require spiritual discernment and if you cannot discern then you cannot understand and if you cannot understand you cannot know spiritual things. Now try reading the text again:
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Again, you pervert what I said and invent what you want me to both say and think. If I quote myself, it is because I am quoting the results of my interpretations of scripture and my interpretations of scripture are ALWAYS SUBJECT to the scriptures for their validity. Hence, if you can show where my interpretations do not fit the contextual facts supplied by the scriptures themselves then my interpretations can be prove wrong BY THE SCRIPTURES and not by you or your traditions.
How utterly stupid! In my series of questions I simply inserted what the scriptures actually and literally stated and that is sufficient to show your interpetation is utterly rediculous! You said the natural man CAN while the text emphatically said NEITHER CAN he know them. How much more of a direct contradiction can there be between your interpretation of that text and what the text actually says?????!:BangHead:
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I'm refering to the plain meaning of the text. However, clearly you have demonstrated your ability to eisegete with the best of them.
Ah now we get to it. You cannot deny that in both cases scripture was interpreted by the tradition given these inspired men therefore you must then state well you aren't these inspired men. To which I answer and niether are you and you are left with the same question. To what authority do you appeal for the interpretation of scripture when two christians disagree? Clearly in both passages the Jews under Nehimiah/Ezra and the Christians under Paul referred to their authoritative teaching function on the meaning of scripture which in both cases both groups passed on these teachings Orally. In Paul the answer is Clear as he spoke to Timothy "guard the deposit" which Paul passed on in his orall teachings as well as his writings. There is that function therefore of the Episkopos to safe guard the whole teaching of God both the writen word and the oral interpretation of that word. I would therefore say that that deposit has been faithfully passed down to this very day in that it is assumed that Timothy faithfully passed both forms of teaching onto his church and later generations. That that full teaching can be found in the Catholic Church.
They like Timothy are the guardians of the Deposit of faith. And its interesting you would thow out the council in which case you have no authority to agree with you for your canon of the NT to which you can appeal. Nor do you have any authority to agree with you for the doctrine of the trinity just ask Seve as he will say he arrived at his polytheism from scripture alone with out any oral tradition.
Now you're getting nasty. I never claimed inspiriation and I admit I must rely on the deposit of faith faithfully passed down and kept by the power of the Holy Spirit to properly divide the word of truth. You on the other hand clearly place yourself as the sole authority to divide the word of truth. What you are able to determine for yourself is your ultimate authority to which you will always appeal and all those who disagree with you, accordingly are in error. which places you above the Holy Spirit and his ability.
You make an assertion certainly your explination of scripture is completely based on what you believe scripture to mean based by an already established theology to which you adhere to.
I
You are the one who claims "biblical definition". Yet you provide no definition as the bible isn't adictionary. My conlcusion is clear.
No. What you will do is sow together non related verses to seemingly support a proposition of what you already believe that term to be.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Do you or do you not hold that scripture interprets itself. Yes or no.
If yes then my statement holds if no then you've changed your view.
Wrong! Neither Jesus or Paul quoted THE TRADITIONS OF THE JEWISH ELDERS but quoted SCRIPTURE as final authority for their teaching. His teachings are preserved ONLY IN SCRIPTURE! What he conveyed orally to the twelve and Paul is preserved ONLY IN SCRIPTURE simply because scripture is "MORE SURE" than oral traditions and thus REPLACES IT as FINAL AUTHORITY for what they taught.
Wrong! 2000 years later we can go directly to Jesus and Paul because their words are preserved and they are INSPIRED and that is precisely the meaning of 2 Tim. 3:16-17!
Wrong again! Neither the Old Testament or New Testament scriptures teach that oral teachings of prophets will be passed down and preserved ORALLY by their followers. The only time oral tradition is of any use is while the prophet is STILL ALIVE and can confirm what is being said about him is either true or false (2 Thes. 2:2). If Oral tradition was promised preservation ten there would be absolutely no need for inspired scriptures or perservation of scriptures. Scriptures are clearly stated to be the final authority not tradition - Isa. 8:20/ 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
To the very same book we both claim were are correctly interpreting. Whose interpretation fits the facts of the Biblical context? That is the very purpose of this forum - testing intepretations by the facts of the Biblical context. The right interpretation will fit ALL the contextual facts whereas the false one will not. So what is the final authority? Our interpretations? No! The Scriptures and the interpretation that harmonizes with ALL the contextual factors of the scriptures is true. Hence, the scriptures are sought to be the final and authorized arbritrator.
That is an historically inaccurate claim by YOUR OWN HISTORY. According to your OWN HISTORY there is no evidence of any universal administrative authority by the church at Rome over any other churches until at least the fourth century and really not even until the sixth century. That is according to your OWN HISTORY.
Rome speaks lies of the devil and that is easy to show and continues to speak lies. We can still go straight to Paul's INSPIRED words and straight to God the Holy Spirit to be our teacher and straight to the throne of grace (heb. 10:17-19) WITHOUT ROME and WITHOUT preists and WITHOUT THE CHURCH and WITHOUT MARY and WITHOUT THE SAINTS and WITHOUT COUNSELS and WITHOUT TRADITIONS and find a very PRESENT help (1 Jn. 2:27).
1 Cor. 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I haven't ignored anything. And you haven't answered the objection. What you have done is created a system (by your own reasoning) by which to interpret scriptures and then apply it as you see fit. It doesn't change the fact that whether you create a system of interpretation or just interpret using your own judgment that you have in effect made yourself the interpreting agent which once again if someone disagrees with you you can clearly appeal to yourself or your created system of interpretation which is based on yourself. Therefore you make of yourself the premier authority on scriptural interpretation and understanding. A simple logical conclusion.
If I were to jump around scripture and string together verses saying that they are the scriptural guidelines for interpreting scripture you would hold that is not so because it doesn't agree with your string of scriptures for the same point. Therefore its not the scripture themselves that provided these rules but your own reasoning to which you force scripture out of their context trying to make them agree with your view. Once again making you the sole arbiter of what is scriptural truth.
You have only demonstrated you can thoroughly take a text out of its context. You make seem as if it stands alone in that passage but it does not Look at vs. 6 clearly referrencing their oral tradition of understanding scriptural passages
we know this giving of wisdom is oral because just previous to this passage Paul states
and also note Paul says
clearly indicating that scripture alone didn't reveal this. And that this oral teaching is what must be used to get the full meaning of scriptural texts. And not only that vs 11 says
therefore if you read the whole context of that chapter we see Paul inspired by the Holy spirit passing on orally a knowledge given to him by God orally by which we can become knowlegable about God. And since No one can judge what a man really thinks and the wisdom given by paul isn't the wisdom of this world (ie world view) they cannot determine what paul says is true because they have that world view.
The passage is clear.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
obviously you can't because there are so many disputes among you about the very meaning of the texts!!! Which is why there are inumerable types of baptist and thousands of differing denominations! Everyone is his own sole authority.
Hogwash! you are INTERPETING the text to fit what you want it to say and mean. If Paul MEANT that he was merely QUOTING and they were merely CONFIRMING quotations he could have easily said that! He did NOT say that.
That is pure foolishness! They spoke directly under inspiration by God. They did not receive TRADITIONS. God's Word is not TRADITION. God speaking directly or moving you directly to write his words is not TRADITION! Neither is it ORAL tradition! That is insane rationale!
What crazy reasoning! I never claimed inspiration but I am the one denying anyone else but prophets taught and wrote by inspiration and you think by confirming my point that helps your argument?????? You need to go back and reexamine what YOU SAID and why I gave that response.
If you are incapable of understanding the answer I have given to you at least three times then repeating it a fourth time will not help your irrrational thinking at all!! I get it, if you cannot win an argument you just cause confusion - great job!
What they orally said was TEMPORAL and PASSING and impossible to be kept verbatim and the absolute proof is that those who attempted to do so were repudiated by Christ and the apostles. Christ and the apostles QUOTED SCRIPTURE not tradition as final authority! You just cannot get a grip on that can you? They REPUDIATED oral traditions passed down from Moses, Nehemiah, etc.! They NEVER quoted oral traditions as their authority for doctrine and practice but ALWAYS quoted SCRIPTURES.
Timothy ORALLY HEARD the prophet speak but YOU HAVE NOT! He commanded his HEARERS to do that but YOU WERE NOT THERE! He commanded Timothy but he did not command YOU!
False! The only one commanded to safe guard ORAL teaching is the one who actually HEARD it. Anyone else it becomes SECOND HAND, third hand, fourth hand and eventually as corrupted as the Oral traditions of Jewish elders. You just don't get that do you????
Just who are you to say that? Scripture never says that! Indeed, scriptures DENIES that in the very case of Old Testament ORAL traditions - Christ REPUDIATED them! Christ NEVER quoted oral traditions as his authority for his own doctrine or practice but instead provided a NEW COVENANT teaching.
I have already quoted YOUR OWN HISTORY in the case of Tertullian to completely disprove that theory!
Go back and read what I said to Seve! Find where I used the word "Trinity" as my own doctrinal definition. I used the Biblical term "Godhead" repeatedly. The word "trinity" is totally unnecessary.
Obviously no explanations of mine will prevent you from twisting my words as you continue to do. My interpretations of scripture are ALWAYS subject to the scriptural data as final authority and so my interpretations are NEVER final authority. Get it? If not, read what I said again but s-l-o-w-l-y!
You just can't help yourself can you? You want to invent ideas and put them in my mouth as though there are mine when I have never said such things and do not agree with them but you jsut can't help yourself can you? My theology has been developed by intense contextual based study of the scriptures - period! I know the truth about myself and from whence my views have originated. Ooops I forgot you are omnicient and omnipotent because you can make real what is not real and call into existence what never existed!!!
Every book in existence that makes any sense is a contextually defined book. However, the Bible is that way by inspiration and preservation. Inspiriation makes the syntax without error and preseveration maintains that contextual pattern.
You still don't get it do you? Differing intepretations does not change God's Word and it is not the intepretation which is final in authority. The interpretation is only as valid as it CONFORMS to ALL the Biblical data. That is exactly why we are on this forum and discussing these issues.
A name does not mean anything. However, there are those under the name "Baptist" who have come together as hundreds of churches and unitedly presented a common confession of faith on all essential matters of faith and doctrine. There are thousands of Baptist churches that make the New Hampshire Confession their confession of faith and this has continued among thousands of church from the time that confession was written till this present day. The same can be said about the London Baptist Confession adopted as the Philadelphia Baptist Confession and held by thousands of churches since it was first adopted. There is little difference between the New Hampshire and London except the London is much more thorough and longer and the New Hampshire is much shorter.
Apostasy divided Baptists in the apostolic era and it is doing that today and the error comes from two primary sources - Satan and Rome.