Bible Interpretation and History

In order to suppose this it would be necessary to suppose that interpretation then was going somehow to arrive at a less fallible conclusion that we can arrive at now simply by virtue of being temporally being closer to the source. If one treats what was said then as some sort of ecclesiatical chinese whispers - time introduces error then fair enough. I think otherwise:1. Understanding of holy scripture is a function of the action of the Holy Spirit. No one at any time can see anything of what scripture truly says without the illuminatory actions of the holy spirit. There is no reason to suppose that action was more effectual then than it is now.2. Pauls scolding of the Galatian church for their departure from the gospel preached indicates that even close proximity to apostolic teaching is no guarentee that error won't be entered into.3. I think of Peter and Pauls rebuke of him for his hypocracy in his shunning gentiles in order to hold position in front of his fellow Jews. Him, who had it revealed to him, through a vision, that the way of salvation was also open to the gentiles! A giant of the church: an apostle no less - going off into error.4. One thinks too of the necessity for the gathering at the council of Jerusalem (in the book of Acts) in which doctrine had to be established in the face of false teaching. We are warned that wolves in sheeps clothing will rise within the church in order to cause damage: false interpretation being a tool in the armory no doubt. Why should we think that the early church wouldn't suffer from such influence?5. Whilst people then would have had a better understanding of the subtleties of the language used in NT scripture there is no reason to suppose that the veritable army of theologians and scholars who have had hundreds of years to tease things apart should be considered paltry in comparison. I can sit an watch the events of my time unfold. It will will be at some future time when a better understanding of what those events represent in terms of political ideological shift (for example) will be generated. There is nothing like 20/20 hindsight to provide accurate interpretation of events.The premise: earlier interpretation = closer to truth is one which would have to provide some basis for itself in order to begin to float. One that would take into account that the church then is as fallible as it is now. The following argument from incredulity does not provide that.

I think it is when you boil it down. You seem to be holding to the idea that the historical writings of the early church is a preferred authority on what should and shouldn't constitute doctrine. You would agree that these writings are not scripture and are therefore (fallible) statements of (read:interpretation of) scripture/what Paul and the other apostles taught. If fallible then how erroneous might they be? One may speculate and try to assign probabilities but in the end we have nothing concrete on which to base our calculation of probability.Another point springs to mind when choosing the doctrine of the Trinity as an example to examine. This doctrine is less than essential to saving faith and is not examined in the kind of detail that Paul assigns to issues such as sin universal, justification not by adherence to law etc. It is reasonable to suppose more room for error for a non-centrla doctrine which is covered implicitly than essential doctrine which was covered explicitly.You would have to pose some concrete reasons why it is you suppose that the early church was in a postion to better grasp difficult (to the temporal mind), non-central and non-directly-taught-doctrine from the same authoritive infallible teaching that we have. Other than a presumption of chinese whispersThe foolish Galatians case is one of a number of NT examples pointing to (huge in this case) error being possible with regard to central doctrinal teaching - even for those lucky enough to recieve direct apostolic exposure. Yet the church should somehow fare better with non-essential, non-explicitly taught doctrine?IOW: scripture tells us that apostlic exposure in no way implies necessity for accurate take up/propagation. You seem to say that it should. On what sound basis do you suppose this?

A not insignificant point. (loosely) According to Truthlovers premise , the people who were around at the time of OT writings should be in a better position to accurately interpret the doctrines contained therein than more modern interpreters. Yet the very holders of scripture, the Jews, picked up the doctrine incorrectly and had to have God-inspired people point out the truths it contained many years later in NT times.It raises a not insignificant point. OT prophets often knew not of which they spoke.Aspects of scripture then would only be more fully revealed at some future point according to Gods plan and purpose. That trinitarian doctrine fully forms (is revealed) after NT times (supposing TL's take on early church evidence is correct) is not a case for its dismissal.

Maybe I am jumping the gun a little. Your op seems to revolve aroundWhat conclusions about doctrinal validity common sense should point us towards.An argument from incredulity "Are we really to believe that..?"Summation "But isn't any interpretation that is not represented in history automatically excluded as a correct interpretation?"Whilst I agree that these all seem like reasonable things to suppose at first flush, I have given reasons why I suppose these later doctrina are not, if they are indeed not, (firmly) established in early church writing. If such musings support there being no particular reason why early church writings, in particular, should talk of doctrines established later, then common sense/incredulity/non-historical representation point us in no particular direction whatsoever.I think the trouble with appealing to common sense is that there is no such thing as standardised common sense. An argument from incredulity is really an appeal to this uncommon common sense. And your assertion that "no historical representation" should result in automatic rejection of later doctrina remains an assertion.

And I suppose the question I have been asking is why should one suppose that they should know about it? Given that they are prone to mis-understanding and error. I don't mean appealing to common sense and the like. Something more concrete is required.This message has been edited by iano, 15-Apr-2006 10:21 PM

Much as I feel incredulous at things that people say I would seldom employ it as such a central tenet of my OP. Nor would I use an appeal to common sense.Your strongest appeal lies in some presumption about the early church. Some appeal to greater authority or perhaps better expressed - a great likelyhood towards holding a purer truth. IOW what they held to is more likely to be truer than that which came later (if indeed it did come later)One possible area of self-refutation arises for your position. You don't see these doctrina contained in your analysis of the Bible. If not, how would you be expected to see them in the early writings if such writings did indeed contain such elements?As far a triune God goes, it is not dealt with in a doctrinal manner in the Bible so perhaps it is no surprise that one wouldn't find it in early church writings. There is no reason however, to suppose that God ceased work after the period of scripture was closed. Nothing to suppose no further revelation.Whatever, my point stands: if you can't see it in the Bible then you cannot be expected to see it in the lesser writings of the early church whose writings presumably had man-designed goals not God-inspired onesThis message has been edited by iano, 15-Apr-2006 10:36 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 15-Apr-2006 10:57 PM

As with the bible, one is left to interpret how it is that early Christian writings deal with the issue; for example salvation by faith alone. It would be untrue to say that there is nothing said about salvation by faith alone - only that one doesn't interpret these early church writings along the lines of faith alone but by the same interpretation that one applies to the NT itself. Which just pushes the argument into the even more difficult area of including non-inspired writing into ones case either wayThe link below snapshots a largish number of early church writings which talk faith-based salvation. Whether one interprets these as referring to "faith + something else" or "faith alone" is open to discussion. But saying... ...is simply your interpretation of those writings and one which, unsurprisingly, happens to align with your interpretation of the NT position on salvation. The appeal to history as a way around the difficulties of interpretation is laid void if the historical view one holds itself depends on interpretation.BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: SALVATION BY FAITH ALONE IN EARLY CHURCH EXTRA BIBLICAL DOCUMENTSEdit to clarify and typosThis message has been edited by iano, 17-Apr-2006 05:03 PM

Can you point out to me something in this passage (or thread) of yours, the root of which is not plunged deep into the compost called "interpretation".There appears, to me at least, to be a central dilema in your premise: to whit, you ultimately fall back to someone's intepretation: be it your own or some 'scholars' or at best, some non-inspired early Christian writing - many of which cover (as linked previously (and according to my and my scholars interpretation)) - faith alone. Not to disparage for disparagings sake but all these scholars are also simply interpreting as best they can.In the end, all that seems accomplishable is to pit one views scholars against views scholars - as if scholarship was ever a proof of anything anyway. There is certainly no biblical warrant for the idea that scholarship results in truth. To the contrary in factThis message has been edited by iano, 19-Apr-2006 01:52 AM

Granted. You elaborated on the doctrine of the Trinity as an example of something which should be rejected on the basis of your (and your scholars presumably) interpretation of early church writings and the BibleConsider the following position held by mainstream Christian denominations. Presumably the theologians of each hue there have studied both the Bible and early church writings and come to unity on the doctrine of the Trinity. On what specific basis are you suggesting your premise should be taken seriously? The weight of scholars appear to be overwhelmingly against your view.

quote:

---

Roman Catholicism:

​

The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life.

​

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:

​

The fundamental truth of the Orthodox Church is the faith revealed in the True God: the Holy Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

​

Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod):

​

We teach that the one true God. is the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, three distinct persons, but of one and the same divine essence, equal in power, equal in eternity, equal in majesty, because each person possesses the one divine essence.

​

Presbyterian Church (USA):

​

We trust in the one triune God.
Southern Baptist Convention:

​

"The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being."

​

United Methodist Church:

​

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

---

I'd add the evangelical church to the above too.