This is a great post about interpreting the Bible. I hear Catholics and Protestants say often that if just anyone was allowed to interpret the Bible you would have chaos, and point to the chaotic mix of denominations as proof. The only problem with that is, a.) it is unbiblical as the Bible is of no private interpretation; and b.) the chaos is caused by denominational politics and flawed men jockeying for position. Churches that believe the Bible as sole authority are very consistent in their basic beliefs, and have been ever since the Bible was written.
To which Candy replied
Sarah Joy, you are right, and you explained it quite clearly. :-)
So maybe you all can help me, but what does this sentence mean?
The only problem with that is, a.) it is unbiblical as the Bible is of no private interpretation;
"is of no private interpretation?" Does she mean that the bible is not to be privately interpreted? But if it means that why would Candy be for it? Her whole understanding is based on her private interpretation or someone else's private interpretation.
And then this part:
the chaos is caused by denominational politics and flawed men jockeying for position.
While I think many denominations split for political and personality reasons, I don't think you can say unequivocally that ALL splits were just for those reasons and that theology and biblical interpretation had nothing to do with it!
It sure doesn't sound like it from this article from Religious Tolerance
It seems to me that about the only think sola scriptura Christians agree on is sola scriptura!
And of course the last statement about "since the bible was written" is just foolish and betrays an ignorance of bible history!
7 comments:
So maybe you all can help me, but what does this sentence mean?
The only problem with that is, a.) it is unbiblical as the Bible is of no private interpretation;
I think she means that the Bible contains revelation, not say, Paul's private interpretation. It reveals truths which are not anyone's interpretation. So when it says that in order to be saved, we must be born again, then that is what it means.
From her perspective, these Bible believing churches are not using private interpretations, but are just using plain Scriptural Truths. It is only when you start explaining away Bible Truths that you get the splintering denominations.
It's the same sort of annoying perspective which says "I'm just a Christian" or "I just believe in what the Bible says." She is denying that their beliefs use any private interpretation, but are guided by the Holy Spirit to these basic Biblical truths.
At least, that's my guess.
They will also cite the dictum that "Scripture interprets Scripture." Not entirely true, since there are statements that need reconciliation in the light of the Holy Spirit.
And all the arguments ignore the clear statement of Scripture that the pillar and foundation of Truth is the Church....
I was reading the comments and noted "Melissa's" response to an anonymous poster. I thought, and made a comment to the effect, that all the posters on that blog should follow her advice and not offer opinions on things they knew nothing about. I'm sure now I'll be the next who will be permanenty banned from Candyland.
It's really sad. That Candy picked that particular comment and thinks it was "great" is quite telling. I'm beginning to really believe it's a lost cause trying to break through the ignorance barrier.
Faithful, I agree that it is a lost cause to think we can change Candy's mind.. you have to want to hear the truth first and she simply does not want that. But, it is still our responsibility to show the truth to those who are on that path to wanting to really know the truth.. and many people are on that journey all the time... so that is what I always pray for.
Excellent post Elena!!
As far as Candy is concerned she already knows the truth; she's one of the chosen few, apparently, who do. Because of that belief, she will never, ever see anyone else's point of view. I don't think that is a surprise.
But, having her version of the truth refuted and questioned is as necessary as her belief in expressing it.
Yeah, Bible only, Bible speaks for itself, no need to interpret Scripture, Scripture interprets Scripture, blah blah blah. Then they turn around and write page after page explaining their interpretation of Scripture and why they're right and everybody else is wrong.
Sarah Joy has written an explanation of part a in the comments now. I might be wrong but I think what she was saying was that she can interpret the Bible in a particular way and another person can look at it and interpret it in the same way so therefore it isn't a "private" interpretation.
Post a Comment