Relying on scripture

[Guest Doctrine]

Jan. 1995

Scripture Reading and Revelation

is a good read on scripture and revelation just like the title says, he says that the scriptures need to be read often because as we read them the meaning changes (or the advice given thru the spirit changes) to our situations in order to help us.

[Traveler]

"Being forgiven" means that the stain and morally disabling character of the sin has been permanently removed. "Not being condemned" means that, for the moment, condemnation -- the exercise of retribution or consequence for a sin -- is being withheld, but does not imply that such will be withheld forever.

The woman taken in adultery was condemned by the law of Moses to stoning to death. Jesus chose not to exercise the weight of the condemnation of the law at that time, especially considering the rank hypocrisy of the woman's accusers. But the moral turpitude and spiritual stain still existed because of the adultery. Jesus did not cleanse the woman from her adulterous stain; he simply told her that he had no intention of exercising the law -- physical death -- upon her, and that she was to "sin no more", which I interpret as a call to repentance.

Interesting how my take on this is approximately 180 degrees from my interpretation of it fifteen or twenty years ago.

Interesting. As a note - I believe that there will not be a person or individual that stands before the Father at the final judgment that will not receive the same basic answer from Jesus concerning that individual's sin. That Jesus will (and the Father) will say in essence the same thing. That we have all been forgiven of our sins and that we should go "our way" and sin no more.

I believe that the way we then intend will define for eternity our place in relation to G-d. Not because we have sinned in our past and that G-d has not forgiven us - but because we intend to sin and as such have not forgiven ourselves.

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

How can we determine if our understanding and interpretations of ancient scripture (form a foreign culture and language) is correct?

The Traveler

Quote from Cardinal John Henry Newman:

"Surely then, if the revelations and lessons in Scripure are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is idiomatic and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs obiter, what is of temprorary and what is of lasting obligation?... The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility."

[Traveler]

Quote from Cardinal John Henry Newman:

"Surely then, if the revelations and lessons in Scripure are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is idiomatic and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs obiter, what is of temprorary and what is of lasting obligation?... The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility."

I find it interesting that when asked how you determine understanding - that you fine it necessary to quote someone else? So my question is - if it is necessary for you to utilize someone else's opinion - why do you find their opinion more reliable than scripture? In other words - if you are going to quote an authority is there more authority than scripture. But then there is another problem - which is circular in nature. How can you rely on the same source to validate that source?

What has convinced you that such understanding of "things" is correct?

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

I find it interesting that when asked how you determine understanding - that you fine it necessary to quote someone else? So my question is - if it is necessary for you to utilize someone else's opinion - why do you find their opinion more reliable than scripture? In other words - if you are going to quote an authority is there more authority than scripture. But then there is another problem - which is circular in nature. How can you rely on the same source to validate that source?

What has convinced you that such understanding of "things" is correct?

The Traveler

Have you ever read the writings of any person who seemed to be able to explain a position better than you? I did. That's why I quoted him. Of course, I am not as wise as you so I would not expect to you to do the same.

Where you ever got the idea that I find John Henry Newman's opinion more reliable than scripture is beyond me, but that is par for the course. I was speaking of interpreting scripture, not comparing its "authority". It certainly doesn't interpret itself. If it did we would all be worshiping together.

[Traveler]

Have you ever read the writings of any person who seemed to be able to explain a position better than you? I did. That's why I quoted him. Of course, I am not as wise as you so I would not expect to you to do the same.

Where you ever got the idea that I find John Henry Newman's opinion more reliable than scripture is beyond me, but that is par for the course. I was speaking of interpreting scripture, not comparing its "authority". It certainly doesn't interpret itself. If it did we would all be worshiping together.

I ask question to clarify questions. There are many people that express ideas similar to mine but I believe I am the only person in the entire world capable of expressing my opinions. Likewise I believe each individual is responsible for their opinion. Many times I have thought I have agreed with someone only to find out that there are details that often define difference. I try to understand the detail - especially of friends I converse with.

Also for the record - I very much like what I understand of the parable of the Good Samaritan and try to be respectful of others worship. I also love expressing my religious understandings and try to carefully verify details to make sure I understand every "jot" and "tittle" of others beliefs. As a consulting engineer I am often asked to test and evaluate automated processes to improve my client's manufacturing. The trick is getting a client to understand what they are doing.

The Traveler

Edited September 25, 2012 by Traveler

[SteveVH]

I ask question to clarify questions. There are many people that express ideas similar to mine but I believe I am the only person in the entire world capable of expressing my opinions. Likewise I believe each individual is responsible for their opinion. Many times I have thought I have agreed with someone only to find out that there are details that often define difference. I try to understand the detail - especially of friends I converse with.

And have you seen nothing on these threads that you would consider to be my opinion? In my opinion, John Henry Newman makes a very good point. How about that?

[Traveler]

And have you seen nothing on these threads that you would consider to be my opinion? In my opinion, John Henry Newman makes a very good point. How about that?

As a follow up question - Why is that opinion not in scripture if it is an essential (very good point)?

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

As a follow up question - Why is that opinion not in scripture if it is an essential (very good point)?

The Traveler

I'll answer this question with the caveat that not everything we need to know is in Scripture. However, the principle behind the comment is in scripture; that being that he gave authority to his Church to bind and loose, while being guided by the Holy Spirit. He desired unity in his Church, not everyone interpreting the scriptures and arriving at doctrines for themselves, as we have today outside of the Catholic Church. The Apostles were adamant that their followers not accept any gospel unless it had been given by them or by those they sent, even if an angel of God was to give it to them? Why? Because of the certainty of human error creeping in when acting outside of Church's authority and guidance by the Holy Spirit. Only the Church had been given the authority to correctly interpret the word of God. Of course at that time, they were only interpreting the Old Testatment as the New Testament had not yet been canonized. The Apostles, and their successors, interpreted the Old Testament in light of the Revelation of Christ and were the authentic interpreters of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The New Testament was that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing, but does not contain everything taught by the Apostles. That which is not in the Sacred Scriptures is alive and active in the life, liturgy and teachings of the Church.

The point is, for God to give us his inspired words also requires an authoritative interpreter, otherwise the truth contained in the Scripture; the very purpose for its existence, is lost. The thousands of denominations today, all relying on their own interpretation and claiming the possession of the truth, while all disagreeing with each other as to what that truth is, is evidence in itself of the validity of the words of John Henry Newman. He is stating an objective truth. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, not each person's private notions of what truth may be. That is why the statment that "the inspred nature of Scritpure requires as its compliment, an infallible interpreter" is true. I think you also believe in the infallible interpretation and teaching of your prophets, do you not?

[SteveVH]

As a follow up question - Why is that opinion not in scripture if it is an essential (very good point)?

The Traveler

I'll answer this question with the caveat that not everything we need to know is in Scripture. However, the principle behind the comment is in scripture; that being that he gave authority to his Church to bind and loose, while being guided by the Holy Spirit. He desired unity in his Church, not everyone interpreting the scriptures and arriving at doctrines for themselves, as we have today outside of the Catholic Church. The Apostles were adamant that their followers not accept any gospel unless it had been given by them or by those they sent, even if an angel of God was to give it to them. Why? Because of the certainty of human error creeping in when acting outside of Church's authority and guidance by the Holy Spirit. Only the Church had been given the authority to correctly interpret the word of God. Of course at that time, they were only interpreting the Old Testatment as the New Testament had not yet been canonized. The Apostles, and their successors, interpreted the Old Testament in light of the Revelation of Christ and were the authentic interpreters of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The New Testament was that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing, but does not contain everything taught by the Apostles. That which is not in the Sacred Scriptures is alive and active in the life, liturgy and teachings of the Church.

The point is, for God to give us his inspired words also requires an authoritative interpreter, otherwise the truth contained in the Scripture; the very purpose for its existence, is lost. The thousands of denominations today, all relying on their own interpretation and claiming the possession of the truth, while all disagreeing with each other as to what that truth is, is evidence in itself of the validity of the words of John Henry Newman. He is stating an objective truth. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, not each person's private notions of what truth may be. That is why the statment that "the inspred nature of Scritpure requires as its compliment, an infallible interpreter" is true. I think you also believe in the infallible interpretation and teaching of your prophets, do you not?

[prisonchaplain]

All Bible and no Spirit leads to Pharisaism.

All 'Spirit' and no Bible leads to heresy.

The Bible and the Spirit are complimentary, and never at odds. If I find an apparent contradiction I must pray more, study more, and, if still uncertain, ask God to reveal a correct understanding in his good timing. The spiritual back burner is a great place of faith.

[SteveVH]

All Bible and no Spirit leads to Pharisaism.

All 'Spirit' and no Bible leads to heresy.

The Bible and the Spirit are complimentary, and never at odds. If I find an apparent contradiction I must pray more, study more, and, if still uncertain, ask God to reveal a correct understanding in his good timing.

And yet we have literally tens of thousands of denominations all praying to the Holy Spirit in great sincerity for a correct understanding, and yet all disagreeing with each other. That is a simple, objective truth. We see little to no progress toward unity in doctrine; indeed, we have just the opposite happening; a continued splintering. We might also say that the Spirit and truth are complimentary and are never at odds. If this is true then it is also true that the various denomination's versions of truth which contradict each other cannot be of the Spirit, but are rather due to man's own misinterpretation, imagination and motivation.

Edited October 2, 2012 by StephenVH

[Traveler]

I'll answer this question with the caveat that not everything we need to know is in Scripture. However, the principle behind the comment is in scripture; that being that he gave authority to his Church to bind and loose, while being guided by the Holy Spirit. He desired unity in his Church, not everyone interpreting the scriptures and arriving at doctrines for themselves, as we have today outside of the Catholic Church. The Apostles were adamant that their followers not accept any gospel unless it had been given by them or by those they sent, even if an angel of God was to give it to them. Why? Because of the certainty of human error creeping in when acting outside of Church's authority and guidance by the Holy Spirit. Only the Church had been given the authority to correctly interpret the word of God. Of course at that time, they were only interpreting the Old Testatment as the New Testament had not yet been canonized. The Apostles, and their successors, interpreted the Old Testament in light of the Revelation of Christ and were the authentic interpreters of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The New Testament was that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing, but does not contain everything taught by the Apostles. That which is not in the Sacred Scriptures is alive and active in the life, liturgy and teachings of the Church.

The point is, for God to give us his inspired words also requires an authoritative interpreter, otherwise the truth contained in the Scripture; the very purpose for its existence, is lost. The thousands of denominations today, all relying on their own interpretation and claiming the possession of the truth, while all disagreeing with each other as to what that truth is, is evidence in itself of the validity of the words of John Henry Newman. He is stating an objective truth. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, not each person's private notions of what truth may be. That is why the statment that "the inspred nature of Scritpure requires as its compliment, an infallible interpreter" is true. I think you also believe in the infallible interpretation and teaching of your prophets, do you not?

LDS may or may not be different in our understanding. I believe that if I follow the same principles as my prophet that I will come to the same conclusion. Thus if I come to a different conclusion - I am responsible and need to account to why. If I am obedient to the commandments of Christ then according to my LDS understanding - I am entitled to understand to the same level of infallibility as the Prophet. If I am not obedient and therefore need guidance it would be wise to follow. If I am in good standing I have every right to request clarification through channels.

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

LDS may or may not be different in our understanding. I believe that if I follow the same principles as my prophet that I will come to the same conclusion. Thus if I come to a different conclusion - I am responsible and need to account to why. If I am obedient to the commandments of Christ then according to my LDS understanding - I am entitled to understand to the same level of infallibility as the Prophet. If I am not obedient and therefore need guidance it would be wise to follow. If I am in good standing I have every right to request clarification through channels.

The Traveler

My only question would be, if you and another person are obedient and therefore infallible in understanding scripture, yet disagree with each other, would not this very fact be evidence that this principle cannot be at work? I know without question that Mormons have very different understandings among themeselves.

I read Scripture daily and receive incredible grace from doing so. But I will never come to a substantive decision on interpretation without consulting the teachings of my Church.

[Jason_J]

My only question would be, if you and another person are obedient and therefore infallible in understanding scripture, yet disagree with each other, would not this very fact be evidence that this principle cannot be at work? I know without question that Mormons have very different understandings among themeselves.

I think it's clear that a similar phenomena can be found amongst Catholics, where they have very different understandings on various issues amongst themselves (the discussions on various sub-forums over at CAF, especially the Traditional Catholicism and Apologetics forums, with various debates and discussions amongst Catholics, evidences this). The question for both is whether these different understandings are really misunderstandings, as well as understandings that do not comport with official teachings and revealed doctrines.

I read Scripture daily and receive incredible grace from doing so. But I will never come to a substantive decision on interpretation without consulting the teachings of my Church.

As would a Latter-day Saint.

[prisonchaplain]

And yet we have literally tens of thousands of denominations all praying to the Holy Spirit in great sincerity for a correct understanding, and yet all disagreeing with each other. That is a simple, objective truth.

Where you see us all disagreeing with each other, I see the glass 95% full. There is tremendous agreement between Catholics and most Protestant churches on most of our doctrines. Even when there is a difference of understanding, it is often a matter of nuance.

We see little to no progress toward unity in doctrine; indeed, we have just the opposite happening; a continued splintering.

Again, I'd beg to differ. I suppose if you simply do a raw count of the number of denominations, you could make this argument. However, when I consider the amount of inter-denominational cooperation, I cannot agree with your idea about the intensity of division. We listen to each other's singers, embrace each other's songs, attend each other's conferences, invite each other's speakers, and we contribute to each other's charities. We don't preach against each other, and, frankly, most church members do not know what these alleged 1000s of disputes are.

We might also say that the Spirit and truth are complimentary and are never at odds. If this is true then it is also true that the various denomination's versions of truth which contradict each other cannot be of the Spirit, but are rather due to man's own misinterpretation, imagination and motivation.

This argument assumes that there was meant to be an organization that gets everything 100% accurate. I do not find that in the Old Testament. Even in the early church, we find a compromise in Acts 15. The Gentiles would not be required to be circumcised, but they would avoid meats that were sacrificed to idols.

You may retort that they come to a 100% correct solution. Perhaps. However, godly spiritual leaders disagreed about the matters. Paul and Barnabus actually parted ways over a disagreement. Yet neither would have denied the other's standing with God.

[Traveler]

My only question would be, if you and another person are obedient and therefore infallible in understanding scripture, yet disagree with each other, would not this very fact be evidence that this principle cannot be at work? I know without question that Mormons have very different understandings among themeselves.

I read Scripture daily and receive incredible grace from doing so. But I will never come to a substantive decision on interpretation without consulting the teachings of my Church.

For us the following scripture is rather important.

James 1:5-6

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

If LDS disagree we believe that we ask G-d and according to the covenant by which the scripture is given we come to a greater knowledge and understanding. Joseph Smith taught that the purpose of leadership and church authority is to teach correct principles and allow people to govern themselves.

It may seem strange to you but disagreement is not a big issue dividing LDS. Of course there are those that disagree but the reality is that LDS just do not have a modern equivalent of the ancient studied expert scholars of Scribes and Pharisees considered to be experts that gather to debate and resolve issues and doctrine. Despite our lack of scholars and experts to guide us – we are expected to read scriptures and have prayers with our families and then also discuss scripture and doctrine mostly in our families. There are a number of individuals that publish books to explain their ideas but such books are considered supplemental and not so much doctrine.

Often this principle is frustrating to our critics that feel that by quoting some various experts they can convince us that something inconsistent is taught among LDS.

The Traveler

[norah63]

May I ask a question, seeing as the thread is Relying on Scripture?

A friend asked me if I knew if Mormons believed that Jesus and satan were brothers.

I have read a little bit on that, but didn't have any Scriptures to give at the moment I was asked the question. Because I think he wanted to vote, just needed some clarification on that point.

I wanted to keep my answer simple, yet accurate, so any help is appreciated.

My friend thought if I was RLDS that is the same as LDS. Hard to explain to prodestents .