/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19744951]

Why do Christians believe that their exegesis of the Bible is just as authoritative as the Bible itself?

[Anonymous No.19744962]

>>19744951
Christians don't believe that. The interpretations of the Church Fathers and other holy men is authoritative, you can make guesses but your guess is not authoritative nor dogmatic.

[Anonymous No.19744964]

There's a thread dedicated to biblical discussion, no need to make another one + it is a terrible bait

[Anonymous No.19744979]

>>19744962
That's not gonna fly with the schizos on /his/. The Christians I know and interact with believe that if they acquire an opinion by reading the Bible, that opinion was authorized by the Bible. Some of them even feel that way about prayer.

[Anonymous No.19744995]

>>19744962
This is the Apostolic point of view (Eastern/Oriental/Catholic)

>>19744979
This is the American Protestant point of view

[Anonymous No.19745000]

>>19744995
Thank you. I will qualify it this way next time.

/thread

[Anonymous No.19745017]

Good biblical exegesis is actually commanded in scripture. “Study [be diligent] to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). According to this verse, we must handle the Word of God properly, through diligent study. If we don’t, we have reason to be ashamed.

[Anonymous No.19745070]

>>19745017
Protties and Catheters absolutely shaking rn

[Anonymous No.19745151]

>>19744995
>This is the Apostolic point of view (Eastern/Oriental/Catholic)
This is the only right one.

[Anonymous No.19745206]

>>19744951
This is only an issue for Protestants. Catholics believe that the interpretation of the Scriptures is entrusted to the Church, which is infallible according to Christ's promise. Protestants believe that by sitting under a tree reading your Bible the Holy Spirit will guide you into the right interpretation.

Of course the advantage of the Protestant view is that one need not be afraid of offering unique and interesting interpretations of the Bible which are not constrained by the fear of "heresy". This is why you see so many interesting cults and new denominations arising in Protestantism. It has a much more individualistic and free-thinking approach to Scripture. Whereas the Catholic is in perpetual fear of denying a "dogma" like the Trinity or Mary's sinlessness, the Protestant can take a fresh, unbiased, unadulterated look at Scripture, and form his own conclusions.

The advantage of the Catholic view is that it provides religious unity and certainty, because nobody can contradict the Church.

[Anonymous No.19745243]

>>19745206
Also worth pointing out that the phenomenon of individuation in interpretation of scripture and the rise of various heterodox denominations that we now attribute to Protestantism also predates the establishment of the Orthodoxy itself; the early Church was just one institution among many different sects of believers and scholars interested in scripture, most of which ended up being declared heretical after the formalization of the Orthodoxy.
In regions of the world that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches simply did not reach, heterodox scriptural traditions continued developing - see Ethiopia.
The point of consternation with Protestants is that they have grafted their heterodoxy onto the 2,000 year old continuum of authority of the Church (particularly the Catholic Church) and use that anchoring to give their ministries false authority - in reality most modern American Protestant denominations only go back a few hundred years and several do not predate the televangelist era.

[Anonymous No.19745260]

>>19744962
The interpretations of the "Church Fathers" is no more authoritative than anyone else's, they were fallible men the same as all. Even the first hand Apostles were often rebuked for wrong views. Also there the church has only one Father, God.

[Anonymous No.19745296]

>>19745243
>the early Church was just one institution among many different sects of believers and scholars interested in scripture, most of which ended up being declared heretical after the formalization of the Orthodoxy.
Right, this is a major sticking point for me even though I'm actually in the process of converting to Catholicism (because of Pascal's wager more than anything else). It seems to me that what becomes "dogma" and "heresy" just depends on the course of history. I can imagine the course of history going a different way and Arianism becoming the popular opinion of the Church. In that case we would be talking about Trinitarianism as a heresy and we would have St. Arius and heretic Athanasius.

[Anonymous No.19745328]

>>19745260
If the interpretation of the Church Fathers cannot be trusted, how can anyone's interpretation be trusted? I am not going to be the person who believe my opinion is right because it is mine.

[Anonymous No.19745377]

>>19744962
>The interpretations of the Church Fathers and other holy men is authoritative
no church believes this

[Anonymous No.19745401]

>>19745296
>because of Pascal's wager more than anything else
literal bad faith

[Anonymous No.19745413]

>>19744951
I was involved in a church that rejects the trinity and insists on baptism "in the name of Jesus" per Acts 2:38. The Bible supports a plethora of readings. I'll put it this way. The Bible is authoritative, your explication is not.

[Anonymous No.19745446]

>>19745328
The "Church Father" opinions can be considered, but if it's not in Scripture, it's not "gospel". Why do you think so much of it needs "interpretation" to begin with? Scripture says what it says and means what it means. The best thing the "Church Fathers" served was providing record of quotes from Scripture so that we can verify it being unchanged from those times. Otherwise they were men like any other, contemplating Scripture and coming up with their own understandings. This is not difficult to accept.

[Anonymous No.19745459]

>>19745413
>I was involved in a church that rejects the trinity
Mormons?

[Anonymous No.19745488]

>>19745446
I don't think that it's at all clear that the gospels provide a model for following Jesus. Just be like Jesus. Lol what? How am I supposed to heal the sick and cast out demons? I need a church to tell me how to be a Christian. I don't think that's at all clear just from reading the Bible. When I read Romans, my contemplation reveals that Paul is teaching adoptionism. Jesus became the son of God when he was resurrected, and so can you, when God raises you from the dead. Then we will be sons of God and brothers of Christ. This is not the standard exegesis.

>>19745459
Apostolic Pentecostals. The above interpretation is not theirs. Yes, the Apostolic movement rejects all Protestant scholarship and gets their doctrines directly from the Bible. What this actually means is that instead of honoring centuries of Protestant scholarship they honor decades of Protestant scholarship.

[Anonymous No.19745521]

>>19745401
Well, I:
(1) have realised materialism is untenable philosophically
(2) have an affinity for Christian morals
(3) find the Catholic Church to be the most reasonable and aesthetic of all the Christian denominations
(4) see religion as a useful structuring principle for life.

It is true that I do not believe wholeheartedly in all of the Church dogmas, I don't deny that. But I have a desire to believe, and Pascal's wager convinces me that it is rational to put my trust in God. As Pascal explained, it starts like this and then once you go to mass every Sunday and live a Christian lifestyle true faith will develop.

[Anonymous No.19745556]

>>19745488

>they honor decades of Protestant scholarship.

This means instead of following the teachings of Luther, they follow the teachings of David K. Bernard because they think his scholarship represents actual Biblical positions like how women are never allowed to cut their hair and why glossolalia is attendant upon salvation. This is a natural consequence of sola scriptura. Just read the book I have pictured. It will blow you away. They are literally protesting Protestantism. It's the 95 theses all over again. I left the church because they ephasize charismatic experience above all else and eventually I couldn't feel charismatic anymore and it just broke me and now I'm going to be an atheist for the rest of my life. You church is important. Submit to the teachings of beneficent, wise and trustworthy men, and give credit where credit is due, because weird stuff can happen when the Bible is the only source of authority.

[Anonymous No.19745558]

>>19745488
You're still conflating things you've heard with things you're reading and getting confused.

[Anonymous No.19745599]

>>19745296
>I'm actually in the process of converting to Catholicism (because of Pascal's wager more than anything else)
As the anon you're replying to, I cannot IMAGINE the overconfidence required to believe that you are going to trick God through a little sophistic logic. Pascal's Wager is a TERRIBLE basis for faith; you'd be better off admitting you simply did not see the signs of proof of God's existence than trying to scrape by on a point of technicality with zero conviction.
In fact Pascal's wager can be put squarely in the camp of moral transgression, because debasing the faith of peoples who might otherwise come to believe in God in truth has surely contributed to the damnation of a few souls across history.

[Anonymous No.19745609]

>>19745556
>and why glossolalia is attendant upon salvation.

This means that speaking in tongues is the evidence of having received the Holy Spirit, and there is no salvation without that. I don't know if any other denomination emphasis the receiving of the Holy Spirit this way. If only they preached the fruit of the spirit this way. Every single weird thing about this religion is based in the conviction that they are following the true teachings of the Bible unlike all of you heretics. That verse about how a man who looks at a women in lust has committed adultery in his heart was a big source of trouble for me growing. All the boys in the youth group understood that you can't look at a woman. This is seriously unhealthy. They also had this stupid concept about how the first look is excusable and unavoidable, but the second look is damnable. They also were convinced that baptism must be "in the name of Jesus" per Acts 2:38. If you did it the normal way it (probably) didn't even count. Why don't you go fucking read Acts 2:38 and tell me why the Bible is all we need for doctrinal assistance! This shit messed my life up.

[Anonymous No.19745620]

>>19745599
Well Pascal claims that you can begin with this basis and then once you start living a Christian lifestyle true faith will develop. It's not as simple as just the wager.

[Anonymous No.19745622]

>>19745488
>I don't think that it's at all clear that the gospels provide a model for following Jesus
It is pretty clear how to follow Apostolic practices - give away your wealth, devote your life to the learning and teaching of Christian faith, found a ministry, and stick to the convictions of your faith even to the point of torture or execution.
Of course much of this is not really necessary or even possible today, and even medieval monks found some difficulty in living in asceticism when your entire society supports your institution. Still, its pretty clearly delineated what constitutes behaving as a follower of Jesus.

[Anonymous No.19745634]

>>19745620
I am completely in favor of Christian aesthetics as grounds for basing your secular lifestyle upon; but approaching the Faith in bad faith is a wager against God. Again, I believe there's more hope of redemption for the agnostic who lives as best he can but fails to see any revelation of spiritual truth than there is in the man who perverts his ideology with the hope of utilitarianism in gaining access to the Kingdom of Heaven.

[Anonymous No.19745650]

>>19745609
Apostolic purists would probably be better off actually limiting themselves to the study of the Gospels and not the borderline apocrypha of Acts and the Pauline books. But in order to institute that kind of change they'd need to divorce themselves from the pseudo-authority of pretending they are attached to thousands of years of Church tradition and unquestionable scriptural authority.

[Anonymous No.19745655]

>>19745558
I'd be happy to talk about Romans 8. It says that the spirit that raised Christ from the dead can raise you from the dead. It's even called the spirit of adoption, and can make us the sons of God. This spirit of Christ is the spirit that God put in Christ, and God is offering to put that spirit in you. You accept it: life. You decline: death.

[Anonymous No.19745693]

>>19745650
Woah, woah, hold up there buddy. Luke and Acts have the same author. Even the most cynical, liberal, and skeptical scholarship is convinced of that.

[Anonymous No.19745738]

>>19745488
Heiled.
Don't bother debating God-hating autists. Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, it is a mental illness.

[Anonymous No.19745778]

>>19745488
Sola scriptura BTFO once again

[Anonymous No.19746366]

>>19745693
Ah, sorry, I get Acts of Paul/Apocryphal Acts screwed up with Acts of the Apostles/Luke-Acts.

[Anonymous No.19746409]

>>19745634
The way I see it, if God is a personal and loving God, he will see that I am open to Him and will give me the gift of faith. Up to now I have not had a "personal encounter" with Jesus, like many Christians speak of. But I hope I eventually will.