Dialog with Jerry: Part 2 (Scripture)
Continuing my exchange with Jerry, we moved onto the subject of Scripture itself. As you’ll see, I spent a lot of time asking questions about Jerry’s various assertions and trying to get at his underlying assumptions…
Scriptural Interpretation
> I know that the Holy Spirit is the One who gives any man understanding of the scriptures according to truth. We can dissect that thing to death, study it night and day, go to 10 years of seminary, know Greek and Hebrew as well as we know English, and still not understand what it means except the Holy Spirit give us light on it. This doesn’t happen as a whole nearly as often as it happens passage by passage as we grow in Christ and knowledge of Him. (of Him, not about Him).
I can agree and affirm all that you say here 100%. There can be a definite difference between academic study and an encounter with the Living Word. Also, the Holy Spirit can certainly speak through God’s Word to both prince and pauper, priest and layman, theologian and software engineer 🙂
However, would it be fair to say that many people have picked up the Bible and felt that the Holy Spirit lead them to an interpretation which is utterly contradictory to the person next to him? This has happened often, in fact, to which the existence of thousands of Protestant denominations testifies. This leads us to conclude one of two possible alternatives:
1. The Holy Spirit is saying something different and contradictory to each person
2. A large number of people are incorrect in their interpretation
The very first split within Protestantism happened between Luther and Zwingli over their respective interpretations of “This is my Body”. Luther’s interpretation was rather close to the Catholic one, whereas Zwingli had a much more symbolic interpretation. They had mutually exclusive interpretations so they both couldn’t be right. As a result, the Protestant world was split in two. It would be repeatedly split again and again in the years which followed as each person followed his own personal interpretation of Scripture. This is the big problem with the Protestant paradigm.
The Canon
> So, because I think this way, I don’t need to spend hours and weeks researching the canon and all that.
For me, this statement poses a serious and fundamental problem: but what is Scripture? You talk about the Spirit teaching us the Scriptures, but what is Scripture?!
Should I conclude from your statement that you are unable to explain to me why the Epistle of James and the book of Hebrews are Sacred Scripture but that the Epistle of Barnabas and The Didache are not?
(Out of interest, outside of the Bible, have you read any Christian works from the 1st and 2nd Century?)
> I believe the scriptures have been messed with and they do contain some errors, especially the newer translations, but that doesn’t stop the Holy Spirit in the least from giving light on it, as He is the real teacher when we open the book. Whichever book or version that is.
On what basis do you make the assumption that “the scriptures have been messed with”? Who messed with the books, when, why and how do you know? What are these errors which were introduced?
> I know there is lots of controversy around the canon of scripture and the RCC, but I assure you, as you can probably guess by now, all that has nothing to do with my rejection of it.
If the Bible is written by the Church, to the Church, read, interpreted and canonized by the Church and then copied and protected by the Church throughout the centuries then this is the Church to be part of!
> …how in the world did the true remnant survive all those years of not having a bible at all? They were led into the truth and taught by the Holy Spirit! Same as now regardless of what bible we have and regardless of whether we know all the ins and outs of how the bible came to be.
Here you’re speaking about history which sounds rather foreign to me…
You talk about a “true remnant” which leads me to conclude that you believe that there was a Great Apostasy at some point in Christian history. Is this a correct assumption? If so, when did this happen? What proof do you have that this happened? And can you give me some names of those who belonged to this true remnant and those who did not? I can give you names of many Catholics throughout the early centuries of Christianity: Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine…
Also, you appear to assert that the “true remnant” was without a Bible for a long time. Could you please explain to me how this happened and how this was later resolved?
Testing for Truth
> Have you ever researched Joseph Smith at all? If you did, you would also know without a doubt that his bible is not the word of [the real] God. I hope I don’t need to go into that one! I’m sure you already know all that rubbish. Good question tho, but I refer to my last paragraph. I think it answers questions 1-4.
No, I don’t believe Mormonism is true, but I asked you this question to try and discern your reasoned explanation as to why you think the Book of Mormon is false. Unfortunately, I found your response a little unhelpful. If by referring me to your previous paragraph you wished to say that you know it’s false because the Holy Spirit tells you, then we end up in an interesting situation where you are discerning using the Mormon test for truth:
But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right – Doctrine and Covenants 9:8
Have I missed something or is your test for truth the same as the Mormon one?
> As for [two pastors disagreeing over a passage], hmmm. I can’t say I have ever asked myself that before as it has never been an issue. I would imagine they’d agree to disagree for the moment, praying for the Holy Spirit to shed light on the passage according to spirit and truth. Which is how we should pray every time we open the book. If we are really His, He will teach us. I believe the main reason there are something like 30,000 denominations in Christendom is because the majority of the people including the pastors and teachers, and the founders, weren’t and aren’t the real body of Christ and/or are interpreting scripture according to their own understanding.
I’m amazed to hear that this has never been an issue for you before. Protestantism’s scandal is that there is a complete lack of unity, either ecclesiastically or doctrinally, despite all claiming to be Bible-based. As you quite rightly point out, there are about 30,000 denominations…and this is not the Lord’s will!
You make the assertion that these pastors/teacher/founders aren’t “the real body of Christ” and are “interpreting Scripture according to their own understanding”. However, couldn’t those pastors/teachers/founders say the same thing about you? If not, why not?
Final post in this series tomorrow…