Normative Authority and
Biblical Interpretation
Lecture Notes for Topic 1.3.3-
Religion 492
Last revised: 2/5/04
Explanation:
Contained below
is a manuscript summarizing the class lecture(s) covering the above specified
range of topics from the List of Topics for Religion 492. Quite often
hyperlinks (underlined)
to sources of information etc. will be inserted in the text of the lecture.
Test questions for all quizzes and exams will be derived in their entirety
or in part from these lectures; see Exams
in the course syllabus for details. To display the Greek text contained
in this page download and install the free BSTGreek
from Bible Study Tools.
Created
by 
a division of 
All rights reserved©
|
|
|
1.3.3
Assigned Readings for This
Topic:
Gerald Bray, "Normative Authority and Biblical Interprtation," Biblical
Interpretation: Past and Present, pp. 36-40
In this topic we will explore the thorny issue of how various Christian
traditions have approached the interpretation of scripture and how they
arrive at an official consensus of interpretation. As you work your way
through the assigned readings, one thing will become very clear: each branch
of Christianity has adopted vastly different approaches to authoritative
interpretation of the Bible.
One of the thorny issues over the centuries has been who is qualified to
interpret the scriptures. Once Christianity moved from the apostolic era
into a time where the written documents of the apostles became the authoritative
source for understanding the Christian religion, the issue became then
Who should do this. Concurrent with the development of the doctrine of
the sacraments came a centralized organization of Christianity. Gradually
the contours of that centralized organization took different directions
in eastern and western Christianity. The centralization of ecclesiastical
authority in western Christianity pretty much took on the tones of the
governmental structure of the Roman Empire with the emperor and the senate
as the model. Thus gradually there emerged the dominance of the bishop
of Rome with a college of cardinals. Parallel to this developing system
was the conviction, reinforced through the doctrine of apostolic succession,
that ultimate interpretative authority lay in the hands of the pope. Through
his authorization the authority to interpret scriptures would eventually
filter down to the parish priest. But these priests would always be under
the strict control of the regional bishops who in turn were answerable
to the pope. Not until Vatican Council II in the 1960s was the laity encouraged
to read and study the scriptures on their own. Because of the Greek influence
and the Byzantium era of influence in the eastern Mediterranean basin,
Eastern Christianity never achieved the same level of centralization of
priestly authority as happened in the west. The regional bishops retained
much greater authority over the churches. This would eventually lead toward
the establishment of nationally based Eastern Orthodox churches as exists
today with the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox etc. Interpretative authority
still remains largely in the hands of the priests and ultimately in the
bishops' hands. In each of these national bodies typically a council of
bishops with a dominant leading bishop serves as the final authority in
matters of faith.
Beginning with the reformers in the 1500s, the approach underwent significant
change. Of course, Luther, Calvin and the others were mostly objecting
to the assumed authority of the pope in Rome. With the establishment of
state sponsored Protestant churches -- in Europe, the Lutheran and Reformed
Churches, and in Britain, the Church of England -- the leadership responsibility
shifted over to synods or councils of pastors or priests, who would then
work closely with governmental officials regarding the activities of the
church. In most countries of Europe and in Britain as well, the government
took over responsibility for the church facilities and the financial support
of the ministers/priests. The church leadership would then give advice
and direction to governmental leaders on matters of religion and morality
for the nation. In this system, the responsibility for interpretation of
the scriptures fell into the hands of the parish minister who pledged to
work within the parameters of the official doctrinal statement of the synod
that the church belonged to. This system has had both good and bad consequences,
with the bad outweighing the good most of the time. Formulation of scriptural
understanding by lay people is largely left up to the parish minister,
and the study of the Bible by the laity has always remained rather minimal.
The one stream of exception to this in Europe has been the Pietistic Movement
beginning in the late 1700s and 1800s. During this period both Lutherans
and Reform Church groups refocused emphasis upon the study of scriptures
by the laity. Mostly this was done apart from the organized church and
often in the beginning without the blessing of the parish minister. Home
Bible study groups meeting during the week day rather than on Sunday have
played an important role among the so-called Pietists who still are a part
of the state sponsored Lutheran and Reform Churches, especially in central
Europe. Small groups of dedicated Christians meet weekly in private homes
for prayer and Bible study in order to gain greater understanding of the
meaning and application of scripture to their Christian walk. The English
version of this became the Sunday School movement which was eventually
incorporated into church located meetings on Sunday and functioned under
the control of congregational leaders. German Baptists, for example, have
largely followed this Pietistic model, rather than the British Sunday School
model.
Also coming out of the late 1500s and early 1600s was the so-called Radical
Reformation. The emerging structures in Lutheranism and the Reformed Church
remained too centralized and too much power was vested in the hands of
the parish ministers: this was the view of a growing number of Protestant
Christians in central Europe. Thus the Anabaptist movement arose creating
a totally decentralized structure, frequently in rejection of the idea
of an ordained clergy all together. This was a laity based congregation
movement developed on the conviction that individual believers were competent
under the leadership of the Holy Spirit to decide for themselves what the
scriptures taught. The concept of the priesthood of the believer, along
with believer's baptism by usually immersion, became distinguishing marks
of this movement. From these early roots in the middle to late 1600s English
Baptists would emerge influenced heavily by the concepts of individual
soul competency concepts. Individual congregations would spring up and
inside the congregation spiritual leaders would emerge, often labeled in
English as elders. They would give leadership to the group but worship
patterns always incorporated opportunities for every member to express
his or her interpretative understanding of scripture, even to the point
of publicly challenging the views of the leadership of the church openly.
In most situations the feeling was that through exchange of ideas a consensus
guided by the Holy Spirit would emerge regarding the meaning of scripture.
Baptists in Britain and in Europe have retained this heritage much more
strictly, than have their American brothers and sisters on the western
side of the Atlantic. In North America, Baptists groups for the most part
have returned to the Protestant Church concept of an ordained clergy with
varying degrees of authority from church to church.
Thus, the approach
to handling authoritative interpretation of the scriptures has varied greatly
by various Christian traditions. Below we will explore some of the particulars
and then conclude with each student formulating a personal perspective
on this issue.
1.3.3.1
Roman Catholic Perspectives on Interpretative Authority
Assigned Readings for This Topic:
Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present, pp.
37
"Tradition and Living Magisterium," Catholic Encyclopedia online
at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
Resource Materials to also be studied:
The heart of the issue is articulated in the above Catholic Encyclopedia
article: "Is all revealed truth consigned
to Holy Scripture? or can it, must it, be admitted that Christ gave to
His Apostles to be transmitted to His Church, that the Apostles received
either from the very lips of Jesus or from inspiration or Revelation, Divine
instructions which they transmitted to the Church and which were not committed
to the inspired writings? Must it be admitted that Christ instituted His
Church as the official and authentic organ to transmit and explain in virtue
of Divine authority the Revelation made to men?"
This Roman Catholic view asserts the principle of apostolic succession
and a major aspect of that is that the Rule of Faith (regula fidei) has
been transmitted as divine revelation through the bishops beginning with
Peter and continuing down to the present pope. It is more than just an
external standard by which the scriptures are to be interpreted. Divine
inspiration continues in the person of the pope along side sacred scripture.
The historic Protestant reaction since the beginning with the sixteenth
century reformers has been that of sola scriptura, the scriptures
alone constitute divine revelation and stand as the exclusive standard
to determine the legitimacy of any religious viewpoint. Thus any Christian
belief not clearly grounded in scriptural teaching is to be rejected as
invalid and any viewpoint standing in contradiction to scriptural teaching
is heretical. Such a perspective has no legitimate claim to being an inspired
Word from God.
Now one should understand that Roman Catholic scholars for the past several
decades have had freedom to explore alternative interpretations of scripture,
sometimes, as is often the case among the Dutch Catholic scholars, very
radical interpretations. But these materials float around largely on the
periphery of Catholic Church life and have little or no bearing on the
life of Roman Catholics as a whole. Virtually none of this material ever
finds its way into the official life and stance of the church. This is
one of many ironies that exist in this system. Although very centralized
with ultimate authority vested in one person, the RC church manages to
tolerate a huge amount of diversity so long as it stands on the edge of
religious life inside the church. Occasionally the pope will reign in those
who venture too far from the official stance of the church, as the present
pope did several years ago with Argentinean priests who were supporting
the marxist oriented liberation theological interpretations of the Bible.
1.3.3.2
Eastern Orthodox Perspectives on Interpretative Authority
Assigned Readings for This Topic:
Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present, pp.
37-38
Resource Materials to also be studied:
A quite fascinating statement about Eastern Orthodox approaches to religious
formulation is found on the web site of the Saint
Peter and Paul Orthodox Church: "In
Orthodox Tradition the theologian is, par excellence, the one who prays,
and real theology is done while standing in that prayer which reaches the
stillness of the deep heart. By this understanding, there are few real
theologians and little or no "written" Theology."
More elaboration is found at the web site of The
Sacred Monastery of the Exaltation of The Holy Cross : "The
word "Theology" is, in a sense, problematic for the Orthodox in as
much as its commonly; accepted meaning -- "Science of God" -- is, in at
least one, sense an oxymoron. It is the Orthodox understanding that when
we approach God, we do so in at least two different ways -- apophatically,
and cataphatically. In the apophatic (or negative) way (which is ultimately
by far the more important), one approaches God by stripping away all concepts,
definitions, and adjectives which would seem to "confine" the infinity
of divinity in order to stand in utterly open prayer before the Holy Trinity.
Thus, in Orthodox Tradition the theologian is, par excellence, the one
who prays, and real theology is done while standing in that prayer which
reaches the stillness of the deep heart. By this understanding, there are
few real theologians and little or no written Theology. This ;way of stillness
is the result of; the repentance, prayer, and participation in the life
of God through the sacraments or mysteries which is commanded of us by
our Lord. The cataphatic (or positive) way is the attempt to describe,
or at least properly delineate, what we can know about God in human language.
It is this latter path -- the study about theology which is the subject
of the writings contained in this section. The sources of Theology (as
it is here understood) are the scriptures, the liturgy, the writings of
the fathers, the lives of the saints, the moral and ascetic striving, and
the iconography of the Church."
The above Roman Catholic Encyclopedia article contrasts Catholic and Orthodox
views this way: "Between Catholics
and the Christian sects of the East there are not the same fundamental
differences, since both sides admit the Divine institution and Divine authority
of the Church with the more or less living and explicit sense of its infallibility
and indefectibility and its other teaching prerogatives, but there are
contentions concerning the bearers of the authority, the organic unity
of the teaching body, the infallibility of the pope, and the existence
and nature of dogmatic development in the transmission of revealed truth.
Nevertheless the theology of tradition does not consist altogether in controversy
and discussions with adversaries. Many questions arise in this respect
for every Catholic who wishes to give an exact account of his belief and
the principles he professes: What is the precise relation between oral
tradition and the revealed truths in the Bible and that between the living
magisterium and the inspired Scriptures? May new truths enter the current
of tradition, and what is the part of the magisterium with regard to revelations
which God may yet make? How is this official magisterium organized, and
how is it to recognize a Divine tradition or revealed truth? What is its
proper role with regard to tradition? Where and how are revealed truths
preserved and transmitted? What befalls the deposit of tradition in its
transmission through the ages?"
Clearly the role of scripture in eastern orthodox traditions is that of
one of many sources of revelatory insight about Christian belief, all of
which stand under the final authority of the church. Thus, as Prof. Bray
observes, the intensive study of scripture is not emphasized among these
traditions. Most Protestants and those in the free church movement such
as Baptists vigorously object to the elevation of the role and authority
of any ecclesiastical system or leader to such a position. Eastern Christianity
has to depend upon previously established church tradition, and thus is
largely content with the ancient declarations of the church councils for
deciding the essence of Christian belief.
1.3.3.3
Protestant Perspectives on Interpretative Authority
Assigned Readings for This Topic:
Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present, pp.
38-39
Resource Materials to also be studied:
Prof. Bray correctly identifies the complexity of Protestantism at this
point. In general, authoritative confessions of faith have been adopted
by most Protestant groups and serve as the defining parameters of biblical
interpretation. Although in general these various confessions move along
similar lines, each denomination has its own way of painting between the
dots, and especially of enforcing conformity to their official confession.
The frequent starting point is the ancient Apostles' Creed, which states
(taken from the Lutheran
Heidelberg Catechism, question 23):
1.
I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: 2. And
in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: 3. Who was conceived
by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary: 4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate;
was crucified, dead, and buried: He descended into hell: 5. The third day
he rose again from the dead: 6. He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at
the right hand of God the Father Almighty: 7. From thence he shall come
to judge the quick and the dead: 8. I believe in the Holy Ghost: 9. I believe
a holy catholic church: the communion of saints: 10. The forgiveness of
sins: 11. The resurrection of the body: 12. And the life everlasting.
Among the various synods of Reformed Church in Europe the Heidelberg
Catechism stands as the official statement of Christian belief. It
is organized around 129 questions and answers to be covered in religious
instruction over a weekly segment for 52 weeks. The answer section contains
a scripture based response to the question posed. Extensive scripture quotation
is found in the answers. The questions cover a wide range of Christian
belief and practice. See the web site Brief
History of the Heidelberg Catechism for background and details.
Among Lutherans in the United States, the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America stands as one of the larger synods. Their
confession
of faith reads as follows:
-
This church
confesses the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
-
This church
confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and the Gospel as the power of
God for the salvation of all who believe
- Jesus Christ is the Word of God incarnate, through whom everything
was made and through whose life, death, and resurrection God fashions a
new creation.
- The proclamation of God's message to us as both Law and Gospel
is the Word of God, revealing judgment and mercy through word and deed,
beginning with the Word in creation, continuing in the history of Israel,
and centering in all its fullness in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
- The canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the
written Word of God. Inspired by God's Spirit speaking through their authors,
they record and announce God's revelation centering in Jesus Christ.
Through them God's Spirit speaks to us to create and sustain Christian
faith and fellowship for service in the world.
-
This church
accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired
Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation,
faith, and life.
-
This church
accepts the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds as true declarations
of the faith of this church.
-
This church
accepts the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as a true witness to the Gospel,
acknowledging as one with it In faith and doctrine all churches that likewise
accept the teachings of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.
-
This church
accepts the other confessional writings in the Book of Concord, namely,
the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles and the Treatise,
the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord, as
further valid interpretations of the faith of the Church.
-
This church
confesses the Gospel, recorded in the Holy Scriptures and confessed in
the ecumenical creeds and Lutheran confessional writings, as the power
of God to create and sustain the Church for God's mission in the world.
These seven articles define in broad terms
the parameters of official belief of this synod. Clearly the ancient creeds
play an influential role in defining the content of Christian belief. In
the world wide federation of Lutheran churches the Augsberg
Confession will play a very significant role in shaping the contours
of faith and interpretation of scripture. First adopted at the Diet of
Augsberg in 1530, this confession provided one of the earliest statements
of belief to come from the emerging Lutheran Church in central Europe.
One of the distinguishing traits of Protestantism in general has been the
principle of sola
scriptura. Both Catholic and Eastern tradition have vested final authority
for faith determination in an ecclesiastical structure, usually referred
to as the Church although the word means different things to each group.
That structure then determines the boundaries of scriptural teaching. In
Protestantism, the relationship is reversed. The scriptures constitute
the final authority, and every tradition must stand within the parameters
of scriptural teaching, as well as each ecclesiastical structure.
Historically the maintaining of the correctness of the confession or the
tradition has been the responsibility of the clergy leaders of each denomination.
The organized denominational structure in most mainline groups has in place
an ecclesiastical court system that on occasion can be brought to bear
against clergy thought to have seriously deviated from that tradition and
from scripture. In the American system this court functions separate from
the governmental court systems, but in the European countries the ecclesiastical
courts are an integral part of either the provincial or federal governments
in each country and function along side both the civil and criminal courts
through the government. Enforcement of conformity to the standards then
travels through the ecclesiastical courts. Although not common place, occasionally
ministers or priests are 'defrocked' by different denominational groups
usually on the charge of severe heresy or immoral conduct. Several years
ago the United Methodist Church took such an action against the pastor
of the FUMC in Charlotte, who was accused of murdering his invalid wife.
1.3.3.4
Baptist Perspectives on Interpretative Authority
Assigned Readings for This Topic:
Resource Materials to also be studied:
As a part of the free church movement with its roots reaching back to both
the Anabaptists in the Radical Reformation and to the European Pietistic
Movement via revivalism in North America, Baptist groups in North America
have followed the model of mainstream denominations with the scriptures
understood as the sole authority for matters of faith and practice. Also,
every tradition in either belief or practice must stand under the judgment
of the ultimate authority of scripture as the sole criteria of its legitimacy.
Where Baptists have differed from mainline denominations historically is
the role of its confession of faith regarding what the scriptures are perceived
to teach. Here Baptists over the centuries have struggled. Early English
Baptists refused to acknowledge even a confession of faith for fear of
undermining the authority of the Bible. Once the English Baptists began
issuing confessions of faith, the tradition evolved that these merely define
where Baptists generally stand in regard to the teachings of the Bible.
How these confessions have been viewed and used has differed widely among
different groups of Baptists over the past centuries of their existence.
This ranges from refusal to even adopt such a confession to a rigid enforcement
of the content of the confession. The decentralized structure of Baptist
organization means that this difference of viewpoint will be found inside
differing Baptist groups at different levels of organizations all the way
from the local congregation to the national organization of that Baptist
group.
The cover letter penned
by Adrian Rogers presenting the 2000 BFM statement to the SBC Convention
meeting in June 2000 contains a strong affirmation of a rigid stance:
Baptists
cherish our doctrinal inheritance. We are a people of the Book, who recognize
no other authority for faith and practice but God's Word. Thus, we receive
and affirm those doctrines revealed in the Bible, and we are unembarrassed
to take our stand upon the solid rock of biblical authority. Our confessions
represent statements of those doctrines revealed in the Bible. The Bible
is the source of our authority, not merely a support for our historic doctrines.
This represents a considerable shift from
the Preamble
of the 1963 BFM statement, especially regarding the role of such confessions
of faith:
Furthermore
it concurs in the introductory "statement of the historic Baptist conception
of the nature and function of confessions of faith in our religious and
denominational life." It is, therefore quoted in full as part of this report
to the Convention.
"(1)
That they constitute a consensus of opinion of some Baptist body, large
or small, for the general instruction and guidance of our own people and
others concerning those articles of the Christian faith which are most
surely held among us. They are not intended to add any thing to the simple
conditions of salvation revealed in the New Testament, viz., repentance
towards God and faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
"(2)
That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having
any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the
future Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements
of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.
"(3)
That any group of Baptists, large or small have the inherent right to draw
up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith
whenever they may think it advisable to do so.
"(4)
That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures
of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation,
having no authority over the conscience.
"(5)
That they are statements of religious convictions, drawn from the Scriptures.
and are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in
other realms of life."
The
1925 Statement recommended "the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, revised
at certain points. and with some additional articles growing out of certain
needs ...." Your present committee has adopted the same pattern. It has
sought to build upon the structure of the 1925 Statement, keeping in mind
the "certain needs" of our generation. At times it has reproduced
sections of the Statement without change. In other instances it has substituted
words for clarity or added sentences for emphasis. At certain points
it has combined articles, with minor changes in wording, to endeavor to
relate certain doctrines to each other. In still others, e.g., "God"
and "Salvation" it has sought to bring together certain truths contained
throughout the 1925 Statement in order to relate them more clearly and
concisely. In no case has it sought to delete from or to add to the basic
contents of the 1925 Statement.
Baptists
are a people who profess a living faith. This faith is rooted and grounded
in Jesus Christ who is "the same yesterday, and today, and for ever." Therefore,
the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is Jesus Christ
whose will is revealed in the Holy Scriptures.
A living
faith must experience a growing understanding of truth and must be continually
interpreted and related to the needs of each new generation. Throughout
their history Baptist bodies, both large and small, have issued statements
of faith which comprise a consensus of their beliefs. Such
statements
have never been regarded as complete, infallible statements of faith, nor
as official creeds carrying mandatory authority. Thus this
generation
of Southern Baptists is in historic succession of intent and purpose as
it endeavors to state for its time and theological climate those articles
of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us.
Baptists
emphasize the soul's competency before God, freedom in religion, and the
priesthood of the believer. However, this emphasis should not be interpreted
to mean that there is an absence of certain definite doctrines that Baptists
believe, cherish, and with which they have been and are now
closely
identified.
It
is the purpose of this statement of faith and message to set forth certain
teachings which we believe.
Herschel H. Hobbs
Chairman
Luther B. Hall
Howard M. Reaves
Robert Woodward
Ed. J. Packwood
Douglas Hudgins
C. Z. Holland
Paul Weber, Jr.
W. B. Timberlake
R. A. Long
C. V. Koons
Nane Starnes
Malcom B. Knight
C. Hoge Hockensmith
Dick H. Hall, Jr.
Hugh R. Bumpas
Charles R. Walker
David G. Anderson
Walter R. Davis
E. Warren Rust
Garth Pybas
James H. Landes
V. C. Kruschwitz
R. P. Downey
The five summary statements in the 1963 Preamble describe the dominant
viewpoint of Southern Baptists until recent times. The confession of faith
is merely a statement of what a Baptist group generally holds in common.
Thus those sharing this understanding of the teaching of scripture have
a sufficient common foundation upon which cooperative efforts in missions,
education etc. can be carried out through the pooling of resources in a
joint effort. On this shared understanding of the basics of Christian belief,
Southern Baptist churches have worked together in missionary and education
ventures for well over a century. But with the so-called Southern Baptist
controversy that began in the late 1970s, the viewpoint of the role of
the confession of faith began changing. Many of the leaders on the right-wing
side of Southern Baptists strongly felt the need for an authoritative written
statement of belief that could serve as the enforceable norm for correct
interpretation of the Bible. Thus at the denominational organizational
level for the past two decades the BFM with official explanations of its
articles, and since 2000 the revised BFM, have increasingly been viewed
as the authoritative norm for interpreting the Bible. Employment in denominational
agencies is contingent upon the individual's signed pledge to both believe
the standards and to conduct his SBC agency employment within the framework
of these beliefs.
The above describes how the process has worked and is now working in Southern
Baptist life at the organized denominational level all the way from the
local associational organization to the state conventions and ultimately
to the national convention. But what interpretative norm holds authority
for the vast majority of Southern Baptist laity? The dynamics here are
significantly different than at the denominational organization levels.
This contributes to the frequent inability of the Southern Baptist lay
person to understand 'what all the fuss is about in the convention.' The
vast majority of lay people never come into a situation where any interpretative
norm is forced down upon them. No one tells them they have to believe that
the Bible teaches such and such or else leave their Christian faith.
Yet in practice most Baptist lay people will trust the interpretative judgment
of their pastor and thus their personal understanding of the content of
scripture will be greatly influenced by his teaching of the Bible from
the pulpit. Increasingly Baptist laity are doing personal study of scriptures
and are spending growing sums of money in purchasing study aids such as
Bible dictionaries, commentaries etc. to help them. In varying degrees
preachers with weekly radio and television programs will become influential
sources shaping their understanding of scripture. Several of the local
church programs, such as Sunday School, mission organizations, are intended
to become sources of growing understanding of the content of scripture,
although just how much these organizations have contributed to serious
Bible understanding is highly questionable.
This approaches in Baptist life historically have worked off a common belief
in the competency of the individual under the leadership of the Holy Spirit
to be able to comprehend at least the basics of the teaching of scripture.
This is coupled with another implication of the doctrine of the priesthood
of the believer, that every individual will ultimately be personally held
accountable before God in final judgment for his own understanding of God's
will. Together these two beliefs have guided most Baptists into their
understanding of Christianity based on the written scriptures as the revelation
of God's will. Thus the interpretative norm for understanding scriptures
is the leadership of the Holy Spirit guiding the individual believer. Diversity
of viewpoint will invariably arise, but the basics of the gospel necessary
for salvation will be held in common and will provide a basis for cooperative
efforts to spread that message.
1.3.3.5
Summation
In light of the above discussion now the challenge to each of you is, How
do you think this issue should be handled? In other words, how do you envision
approaching it once you're situated in a local parish ministry of some
kind? Formulate in writing two things: (1) how you understand the function
of some external interpretative norm defining the content of scripture
teaching; (2) how you envision this understanding will guide you in your
anticipate vocational Christian ministry.
Bibliography
Check Bray's bibliography in appropriate chapter of the textbook.
Check the appropriate Bibliography section
in Cranfordville.com
Orthodox Christian Websites & Online Resources at http://stjrussianorthodox.com/stjrusorthodoxy.htm
Eastern Orthodox Church Theology at http://stjrussianorthodox.com/theology.htm
Augsberg Confession at http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/boc/ac/.