Bible written and compiled by NON-PROTESTANTS

Hello.
I'm new to this website and so far am enjoying the discussions on the forum.

In answer to the questions in the first post, the Bible was written first and foremost by God Himself, and as such transcend any and all cultural and ideological influences in the things that are of primary importance. God meant what He said no matter whom He said it through.

With that said, there is no escaping the fact that God used specific individuals to write His Word, and individuals tend to be influenced by their culture and religion. Because of that, we do well to examine what those influences on the writers were. In the case of the Old Testement, the vast majority of the writers were Jewish, writing in and to a Jewish culture. While you can read the OT in modern English and get the gist of it, studying the Jewish culture of that time and reading "their" Bible through their eyes opens up whole new vistas of insight that are completely hidden to a Western mind. (Not that I'm speaking from vast personal experience; I'm just beggining to realize the possibilities of that kind of study, thanks to Ray VanderLaan of Follow the Rabbi.org.) However, swinging the pendulum to the other end, those same Jews, with all their wonderful traditions and teachings, completely missed their promised Messiah! So while such traditions can contribute helpful insight, we must never let them take precedence over the Word itself.

Like the Old Testement, the New Testement was written by people from specific cultures and backgrounds, and though we can understand the essentials of the gospel message by reading the Bible in our langauge alone with no knowledge of those cultures, we stand to lose much by neglecting to study and learn how the original hearers and readers would have understood what was said.

You asked if modern Protestant thought contains assumptions that hinder the proper or original understanding of the scriptures. I think one major assumption is that we can correctly interpret all of scripture based on the words of the Bible and on the guidance of the Holy Spirit alone. But experience has shown that it simply does not work that way. You end up with x amount of denominations each of which stoutly declares that their interpretation is the correct interpretation of scripture. You can have two very serious, very dedicated, mature Christians who are completely disagreed on a certain doctrine, though both stedfastly declare that they were led into their belief by the Holy Spirit. Something is obviously not quite as it should be.

I think one way to address that is to go back and see what the original recipients of the writing of the New Testement believed, and how they interpreted the passages that are in question. Relying on the Bible alone in such situations does not work, because there can be an honest disagreement in interpretation. But in many cases, only one of those interpretations can be correct. Which one is correct? Well, which one did the early Christians believe and practice?

Remember that the early Christians were of the same cultures and times as the writers of the New Testament, and indeed many of the early church fathers studied directly under the apostles, or disciples of the apostles. They would have known and understood much better what was meant by what was written. Not that they were in any way inspired or infallible, but if they got it wrong way back then, what hope do we have of getting it right now?

In short, the Protestant church at the time of the Reformation took a step away from the Catholic church, which was a step in the right direction, since the Catholic church at that time was far from perfect. But the Protestants did not go as far as they could have or should have because they did not step toward the original church and "primitive" Christianity. They stepped away from a false authority, but ended up with numerous questionable "authorities" in its place. They stepped away from one Tradition and in its place put up many Traditions, to which they adhere almost as religiously. The doctrines that resulted were numerous and conflicting. Many of them would have been considered heretical by the early church.

So to answer your question, yes, I think the Prostestant church errs by assuming that it can rely on personal interpretation "guided by the Holy Spirit" alone, and I think that can be remedied by going back, all the way back, to the early church, and as it were sitting at the feet of the apostles to learn the "traditions that ye have been taught...by word [and] our epistle". (2 Thess. 2:15)