s/o AWANA - BSF?

[Giraffe]

The thread about AWANA got me thinking about a BSF Bible study group I was going to join next week (http://www.bsfinternational.org). I'm caught between my "old" world of Protestant sola scriptura thinking and my strong leanings to Catholicism and how adding Tradition to the equation makes so much sense.

 

I will probably still go forward with the study (it's on Isaiah this term) but wondered if I'm setting myself up for more confusion?

 

Stupid question - forgive me - but do Catholics do formal Bible studies? I'm thinking of all the Ladies groups, Small groups, children's Sunday School and everything else I find in a Protestant church. Do Catholics do this? All I've ever seen is Mass on Sunday and it doesn't seem like there's anything else available for Sunday School, etc.

[Parrothead]

The thread about AWANA got me thinking about a BSF Bible study group I was going to join next week (www.bsfinternational.org). I'm caught between my "old" world of Protestant sola scriptura thinking and my strong leanings to Catholicism and how adding Tradition to the equation makes so much sense.

 

I will probably still go forward with the study (it's on Isaiah this term) but wondered if I'm setting myself up for more confusion?

 

Stupid question - forgive me - but do Catholics do formal Bible studies? I'm thinking of all the Ladies groups, Small groups, children's Sunday School and everything else I find in a Protestant church. Do Catholics do this? All I've ever seen is Mass on Sunday and it doesn't seem like there's anything else available for Sunday School, etc.

Yes, it depends on the parish. Most parishes have to offer Mass and Religious Ed for the kids. Those are what the bishop's office looks at when assessing a viable parish. My last parish was on the verge of dying out, and being closed because there was no Sunday school (RE) for two years prior to use moving there. I picked up the ball on that one and had paperwork to send to the diocese office and... well...you get the idea.

 

Larger parishes are going to offer more stuff - small groups, large classes, youth ministry, CCW (Council of Catholic Women), KofC (Knights of Columbus (the very large men's group which offers terrific insurance), Little Flower's club (sort of like scouts for girls) Blue Knights (scouts for boys), possibly a weekly rosary group, possibly a charismatic group, and many more options.

 

In my small town of 7000 our parish has everything but the scouts.

[8circles]

The thread about AWANA got me thinking about a BSF Bible study group I was going to join next week (www.bsfinternational.org). I'm caught between my "old" world of Protestant sola scriptura thinking and my strong leanings to Catholicism and how adding Tradition to the equation makes so much sense.

 

I will probably still go forward with the study (it's on Isaiah this term) but wondered if I'm setting myself up for more confusion?

 

Stupid question - forgive me - but do Catholics do formal Bible studies? I'm thinking of all the Ladies groups, Small groups, children's Sunday School and everything else I find in a Protestant church. Do Catholics do this? All I've ever seen is Mass on Sunday and it doesn't seem like there's anything else available for Sunday School, etc.

 

My mom has been in BSF for years. Some of the ladies are Catholic, but that's just anectdotal.

 

I've heard some comments that make me thing Catholicism doesn't believe in studying the Bible, it's a question that I've been meaning to ask.

[T Baer]

The thread about AWANA got me thinking about a BSF Bible study group I was going to join next week (http://www.bsfinternational.org). I'm caught between my "old" world of Protestant sola scriptura thinking and my strong leanings to Catholicism and how adding Tradition to the equation makes so much sense.

 

I will probably still go forward with the study (it's on Isaiah this term) but wondered if I'm setting myself up for more confusion?

 

Stupid question - forgive me - but do Catholics do formal Bible studies? I'm thinking of all the Ladies groups, Small groups, children's Sunday School and everything else I find in a Protestant church. Do Catholics do this? All I've ever seen is Mass on Sunday and it doesn't seem like there's anything else available for Sunday School, etc.

point not to discuss different church doctrine. The study is on the Word (the Bible) and what God is teaching you about what you've read. There are the questions that help stimulate your thinking but It's not leaning you towards any church doctrine. It's a solid study. As far as Catholics studying the Bible. I do know that there are some that do and have Bible studies in their own (Catholic) church.

I don't think you will be confused, but you will be richly blessed by the study especially if you do the study participate in the discussions, listen to the lecture and read the notes.

Hopes this helps with any confusion you have and give you peace about participating.:001_smile:

[FairProspects]

point not to discuss different church doctrine. The study is on the Word (the Bible) and what God is teaching you about what you've read. There are the questions that help stimulate your thinking but It's not leaning you towards any church doctrine.

Hopes this helps with any confusion you have and give you peace about participating.:001_smile:

 

:iagree:When I did BSF we weren't even supposed to mention which church we attended.

[Parrothead]

My mom has been in BSF for years. Some of the ladies are Catholic, but that's just anectdotal.

 

I've heard some comments that make me thing Catholicism doesn't believe in studying the Bible, it's a question that I've been meaning to ask.

Yes, we study the bible. We even have a study bible. ;)

 

I think the confusion comes from back in the day. Most people were illiterate and had to depend on the traveling priest or monks from the abbey to tell them what the Bible says. Then people started learning to read and were instructed to turn to their parish priest for interpretation if something was confusing to them or if two verses contradicted one another.

 

The way I understand the history is somehow or another things got turned around by misinformed souls. Protestants and even by Catholics of my grandparent's generation (and possibly older) believed that Catholics weren't to read the Bible without a priest present. That simply was never in the past or even today true. (Okay everyone, let's play Telephone.)

 

Catholics are encouraged to read, study, and ask questions of the Bible. We are still to go to a priest or a brother or sister if we have a question or something is somehow confusing.

 

HTH

Edited January 1, 2011 by Parrothead

[Avila]

My parish has a Bible study that covers the whole Bible in five years. We offer a men's group, a Sunday morning group and a Tuesday evening group plus a Wednesday morning mom's group that alternates formal Bible study with other devotional books.

 

It really depends on the size of the parish on what each one will offer, but you can attend Bible study at another parish if yours doesn't offer one. And the RCIA classes will often offer Bible study within their preparation program too.

 

I would really try to find a Catholic one at this point in your journey.

 

Best wishes!

[forty-two]

point not to discuss different church doctrine. The study is on the Word (the Bible) and what God is teaching you about what you've read. There are the questions that help stimulate your thinking but It's not leaning you towards any church doctrine. It's a solid study. As far as Catholics studying the Bible. I do know that there are some that do and have Bible studies in their own (Catholic) church.

Honest question here, but I didn't think Catholics were big on Bible study that does not take Tradition/Church teaching into account :confused:. I mean, we Lutherans don't believe in the "every person reads the Word in theological isolation from the rest of the Church" Bible study paradigm, where everyone comes up with their own "personal" interpretation, b/c there is no "right answer". We study the Word in the context of the Confessions (the "right answer" ;) unless and until proven otherwise from Scripture), and since Church teaching and Tradition have equal footing with Scripture in the RCC, I thought they'd be even more concerned about people divorcing Bible study from the context of church teaching :confused:. In which case, the BSF paradigm would be a really bad fit. (Also, BSF's SoF holds to exactly 66 books of the Bible, but that seems minor in comparison to the above, if accurate.)

[Giraffe]

Yes, we study the bible. We even have a study bible. ;)

 

I think the confusion comes from back in the day. Most people were illiterate and had to depend on the traveling priest or monks from the abbey to tell them what the Bible says. Then people started learning to read and were instructed to turn to their parish priest for interpretation if something was confusing to them or if two verses contradicted one another.

 

The way I understand the history is somehow or another things got turned around by misinformed souls. Protestants and even by Catholics of my grandparent's generation (and possibly older) believed that Catholics weren't to read the Bible without a priest present. That simply was never in the past or even today true. (Okay everyone, let's play Telephone.)

 

Catholics are encouraged to read, study, and ask questions of the Bible. We are still to go to a priest or a brother or sister if we have a question or something is somehow confusing.

 

HTH

 

I just want to hug you. Or send you chocolate. :D

 

Do you know how many questions you've answered in the past few days? How many misconceptions you and the other RCC and EO ladies here have cleared up? Simple answers, straightforward explanations. It all makes so much sense now.

 

I'm the one on another thread that relayed what I grew up with as far as "what Catholics believe". You've turned every single one of those "facts" on their heads and exposed the truth.

 

Even if I don't convert, at least I understand. Thank you!!

[Parrothead]

Honest question here, but I didn't think Catholics were big on Bible study that does not take Tradition/Church teaching into account :confused:. I mean, we Lutherans don't believe in the "every person reads the Word in theological isolation from the rest of the Church" Bible study paradigm, where everyone comes up with their own "personal" interpretation, b/c there is no "right answer". We study the Word in the context of the Confessions (the "right answer" ;) unless and until proven otherwise from Scripture), and since Church teaching and Tradition have equal footing with Scripture in the RCC, I thought they'd be even more concerned about people divorcing Bible study from the context of church teaching :confused:. In which case, the BSF paradigm would be a really bad fit. (Also, BSF's SoF holds to exactly 66 books of the Bible, but that seems minor in comparison to the above, if accurate.)

That can't be done. Tradition does not contradict the Bible. The Bible does not contradict Tradition.

[Parrothead]

I just want to hug you. Or send you chocolate. :D

 

Do you know how many questions you've answered in the past few days? How many misconceptions you and the other RCC and EO ladies here have cleared up? Simple answers, straightforward explanations. It all makes so much sense now.

 

I'm the one on another thread that relayed what I grew up with as far as "what Catholics believe". You've turned every single one of those "facts" on their heads and exposed the truth.

 

Even if I don't convert, at least I understand. Thank you!!

You are welcome. I'll share my chocolate with you.

 

I'm always glad to help. Sometimes I'm wrong - or at least not fully right.

 

I'd much rather that the questions be out in the open where everyone can learn something. I'm really hoping someone starts a really cool Protestant thread. I think we all have much more in common that we have different. If the truth comes to light then maybe we can all get along.

[momofkhm]

They leadership knows there are Catholics there and when there are questions which Catholics will answer differently the teaching leader will point out to the small group leaders that different answers may be voiced than those at the leaders meeting. (Things like communion and baptism come to mind, probably something that would trigger thoughts about purgatory as well.)

 

You're not supposed to mentioned which church you go to, which denomination you are, anything your pastor says. There are ways of getting around the pastor question. ;) But I also know on the form you fill out to join, you write which church you go to, so the leadership does know. Your small group leader does not.

 

I have a friend who is Catholic and something written in the notes made her uncomfortable. I don't remember what though. It may have been something to do with communion or baptism. :)

 

I loved the program. I went to a day chapter so my kids went to the preschool program. They learned more there than in Sunday school. We did one year in a night chapter with my kids going to the school age program. I do recommend it to anyone looking for a wonderful, intense Bible study.

[forty-two]

That can't be done. Tradition does not contradict the Bible. The Bible does not contradict Tradition.

Which is actually my point - RCC believes in a right answer, and why in the world would you want people to study the Bible ignoring what the church has already taught about it? B/c in BSF, from what I understand, everybody comes to their own personal conclusion, and are not allowed to argue with what anyone else thinks, and are not allowed to bring any sort of church teaching into it. So everyone is studying the Bible in isolation - and as the multitude of Protestant churches can tell, you, they don't all come to the same conclusion. Which means the odds of a lone person coming to the same conclusion as millennia of learned Catholics theologians on their own is basically nil. Which is why I thought that Catholics were *not* supposed to study in isolation, ignoring church tradition and teaching - *because* that is how all the Protestant schisms occur, because people take no time to figure out what anyone else has said on the topic, b/c my uneducated opinion is just as good as that of millennia of learned theologians, and so people constantly reinvent old heresies. I thought there was a *reason* that Tradition existed, and that was to guide people, so that everyone is not reinventing the wheel, theologically speaking. So why would you want to study the Bible outside of Tradition, since, as you say, they go hand in hand?

[Parrothead]

Which is actually my point - RCC believes in a right answer, and why in the world would you want people to study the Bible ignoring what the church has already taught about it? B/c in BSF, from what I understand, everybody comes to their own personal conclusion, and are not allowed to argue with what anyone else thinks, and are not allowed to bring any sort of church teaching into it. So everyone is studying the Bible in isolation - and as the multitude of Protestant churches can tell, you, they don't all come to the same conclusion. Which means the odds of a lone person coming to the same conclusion as millennia of learned Catholics theologians on their own is basically nil. Which is why I thought that Catholics were *not* supposed to study in isolation, ignoring church tradition and teaching - *because* that is how all the Protestant schisms occur, because people take no time to figure out what anyone else has said on the topic, b/c my uneducated opinion is just as good as that of millennia of learned theologians, and so people constantly reinvent old heresies. I thought there was a *reason* that Tradition existed, and that was to guide people, so that everyone is not reinventing the wheel, theologically speaking. So why would you want to study the Bible outside of Tradition, since, as you say, they go hand in hand?

Why would anyone want to study the Bible in isolation. Ick.

 

Well, take my last parish for instance. It was open for Mass and Sunday school. If a parishioner wanted to do a Bible study, he might possibly find another parishioner to study with him or join and outside group. A groups such as the one in question seems to fit the bill for an open Christian group from the descriptions. But, sheesh, from what you described above bolded, it sounds quite boring and possibly a bit useless.

[Giraffe]

Why would anyone want to study the Bible in isolation. Ick.

 

Well, take my last parish for instance. It was open for Mass and Sunday school. If a parishioner wanted to do a Bible study, he might possibly find another parishioner to study with him or join and outside group. A groups such as the one in question seems to fit the bill for an open Christian group from the descriptions. But, sheesh, from what you described above bolded, it sounds quite boring and possibly a bit useless.

 

I'll let you know what I find out next week at the first meeting. ;)

[mom2a&z]

I spent almost 3 years in BSF and left when I decided to convert to Catholicism. We were doing a study on the book of John and once we got to chapter 6, which is where Jesus tells his followers that they must eat his body and drink his blood, I realized that even though the study is non-denominational, it is clearly Protestant.

 

As someone who was trying to learn as much as I could about the Catholic Church, I felt that I was setting myself up for confusion if I stayed in BSF. At that point in my spritual journey, I wanted to know what the Church taught on certain topics and not what everyone in my small group felt about certain verses.

 

If someone is very confident and secure in what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the Scripture being studied, then BSF is a great way to study the Bible. But as a new Catholic, I wanted to do a Bible study from the Catholic perspective.

[forty-two]

Why would anyone want to study the Bible in isolation. Ick.

...

But, sheesh, from what you described above bolded, it sounds quite boring and possibly a bit useless.

 

I'll let you know what I find out next week at the first meeting. ;)

 

Hopefully I'm not libelling them :tongue_smilie:. But it's a common Protestant idea (*not* shared by Lutherans ;), which comes as a surprise to many) that each person determines for himself what the Bible says - that the right way to do it is just you, your Bible, and the Holy Spirit, with no outside "contamination" from what other (fallible) people have thought. And the BSF emphasis on staying "non-denominational", on not letting people claim their interpretation as the "right one", and on not letting people include anything other than the Bible and their own personal opinion (which could of course be shaped by church teaching ;)) in their stated reasoning makes me think they it is definitely part of that "tradition".

[Giraffe]

Hopefully I'm not libelling them :tongue_smilie:. But it's a common Protestant idea (*not* shared by Lutherans ;), which comes as a surprise to many) that each person determines for himself what the Bible says - that the right way to do it is just you, your Bible, and the Holy Spirit, with no outside "contamination" from what other (fallible) people have thought. And the BSF emphasis on staying "non-denominational", on not letting people claim their interpretation as the "right one", and on not letting people include anything other than the Bible and their own personal opinion (which could of course be shaped by church teaching ;)) in their stated reasoning makes me think they it is definitely part of that "tradition".

 

Which is why I'm wondering if this is a good idea or not. Since the book under study is Isaiah, I'm going to go forward, but with eyes open.

 

I grew up with the idea that it's you, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit, so BSF is a perfect fit for that concept. I'm really looking forward to it so I'm hoping it will be ok (being the Old Testament and all). I'll ask the priest when I meet with him in a couple of weeks.

 

I can't believe I just wrote that last sentence. A year ago I would have never considered that!

[8circles]

But it's a common Protestant idea (*not* shared by Lutherans ;), which comes as a surprise to many) that each person determines for himself what the Bible says - that the right way to do it is just you, your Bible, and the Holy Spirit, with no outside "contamination" from what other (fallible) people have thought. And the BSF emphasis on staying "non-denominational", on not letting people claim their interpretation as the "right one", and on not letting people include anything other than the Bible and their own personal opinion (which could of course be shaped by church teaching ;)) in their stated reasoning makes me think they it is definitely part of that "tradition".

 

Where did you come to this conclusion? I've never encountered this idea at all in Protestantism.:001_huh:

[Parrothead]

I'll let you know what I find out next week at the first meeting. ;)

Let me know how that goes. Will it be your first time with the group?

[forty-two]

Where did you come to this conclusion? I've never encountered this idea at all in Protestantism.:001_huh:

Kinda depends on your branch of Protestantism, I bet (as I said, very much not Lutheran, probably not Anglican, and possibly not Presbyterian) - but the OP confirmed that that was the view she grew up with, so it's not just me ;). It's just the overall view I've gotten over the years of reading Bible study books, most of which emphasis *you* coming to *your* opinion from just prayer and studying the text (with commentaries and such reserved only for *after* you've sorted it out or never), and seeing people dismiss the importance of pastors having formal theological training - all you need is the Holy Spirit to properly interpret the Bible, and seeing the general dismissal of church history and theological study (and the resulting reinventing of the wheel, heresies and all). Again, it depends on what branch of Protestantism how much this applies - but I've seen it a lot in popular American Christian culture. And dh is always having to explain to confused Lutherans that we *don't* hold to individual Biblical interpretation - that interpretation should be done in the context of the whole church and its teachings.

[Giraffe]

Let me know how that goes. Will it be your first time with the group?

 

I did it once, a long time ago, when I was in a completely different place spiritually. And I didn't finish it, though I can't remember why I stopped. Probably it was when my back went catty-whampus.

 

I go Wednesday. I'll let you know. :)

[dirty ethel rackham]

My mom has been in BSF for years. Some of the ladies are Catholic, but that's just anectdotal.

 

I've heard some comments that make me thing Catholicism doesn't believe in studying the Bible, it's a question that I've been meaning to ask.

 

Oh Catholics definitely DO believe in studying the Bible and there has been a HUGE surge in interest in the last couple decades. This myth comes from some twisting of historical facts. The church did forbid reading some Bibles in the past but that was because they were inaccurate or heretical translations. Also, much of this history of not reading the Bible personally comes from a time when books were so expensive that only the rich could afford them. The Catholic church does not recommend reading the Bible alone and putting personal interpretation above 2000 years of scholarship and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

As a cradle Catholic, other than reading the Gospels and studying them in my Catholic grade school, my first introduction to Bible study was at an evangelical church. My parish didn't offer anything more than a study of the Sunday readings and I wanted something more substantial than that. So, my former friend snookered me in ... I say snookered because her intent was to take me away from my "evil Catholicism" and get me "saved." Well, this study, based upon Kay Arthur, was definitely anti-Catholic. Lots of emphasis on the evils of Rome and how it was the anti-Christ, yada, yada, yada. I don't know if it was the Kay Arthur materials per se or the attitude of the leader and everyone else there. After a while, I figured out what was going on and left.

 

That experience did jumpstart an interest in learning more about my faith since I was a product of the wishy-washy catechesis of the '70's. I read books on fundamentalism's attack on Catholicism, Catholicism and the Bible, etc. I came out of it with a stronger Catholic faith and a yearning for a Catholic Bible study. About 8 years ago, our church started a new program with more intensive study. We started out with the more light weight (but valuable) Six Weeks with the Bible series. Then we did the entire Denver Catholic Bible Study under the supervision of Sr. Macrina Scott herself. Since that was a college level study, we did it in 6 years instead of 4 so that busy adults could handle the workload. This has been a Godsend for me. The Catholic perspective has been sooo incredibly important to me. So has the fellowship of other people who are walking this faith journey with me.

[Parrothead]

Where did you come to this conclusion? I've never encountered this idea at all in Protestantism.:001_huh:

I, too, thought it was fairly common in Protestant circles. I've been told enough times (IRL) I ought to just read the Bible and let it speak to me instead of only reading it with permission from my priest. :glare:

[8circles]

Oh Catholics definitely DO believe in studying the Bible and there has been a HUGE surge in interest in the last couple decades. This myth comes from some twisting of historical facts. The church did forbid reading some Bibles in the past but that was because they were inaccurate or heretical translations. Also, much of this history of not reading the Bible personally comes from a time when books were so expensive that only the rich could afford them. The Catholic church does not recommend reading the Bible alone and putting personal interpretation above 2000 years of scholarship and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

 

Aha - thanks for that explanation. & Sorry you got "snookered" - that must have been unpleasant. I'm not Familiar with Kay Arthur materials but I've heard the name.

[8circles]

Kinda depends on your branch of Protestantism, I bet (as I said, very much not Lutheran, probably not Anglican, and possibly not Presbyterian) - but the OP confirmed that that was the view she grew up with, so it's not just me ;). It's just the overall view I've gotten over the years of reading Bible study books, most of which emphasis *you* coming to *your* opinion from just prayer and studying the text (with commentaries and such reserved only for *after* you've sorted it out or never), and seeing people dismiss the importance of pastors having formal theological training - all you need is the Holy Spirit to properly interpret the Bible, and seeing the general dismissal of church history and theological study (and the resulting reinventing of the wheel, heresies and all). Again, it depends on what branch of Protestantism how much this applies - but I've seen it a lot in popular American Christian culture. And dh is always having to explain to confused Lutherans that we *don't* hold to individual Biblical interpretation - that interpretation should be done in the context of the whole church and its teachings.

I'm not sure that it depends on the branch, I know people in many, many branches & not one of them believes that they are to read the Bible & form their own opinions disregarding all official doctrine or formal teaching. I should start a thread asking if anyone's denomination believes this. I suspect it's more of a perspective issue. No matter how many times certain Catholic beliefs are explained to me from the Catholic perspective it's still hard for me to see. But the way that you are describing it is very much not true for at least a great number of Protestants. I'm trying to say this gently but it's almost offensive.

[forty-two]

I'm not sure that it depends on the branch, I know people in many, many branches & not one of them believes that they are to read the Bible & form their own opinions disregarding all official doctrine or formal teaching. I should start a thread asking if anyone's denomination believes this. I suspect it's more of a perspective issue. No matter how many times certain Catholic beliefs are explained to me from the Catholic perspective it's still hard for me to see. But the way that you are describing it is very much not true for at least a great number of Protestants. I'm trying to say this gently but it's almost offensive.

I'm sorry if my wording was offensive :grouphug:. And, just ftr, I'm actually a cradle Lutheran, not Catholic ;).

 

I guess I'd better clarify a bit, as I suppose I smooshed a couple different beliefs together, plus some of the errors that those beliefs can be prone to (and all beliefs have errors they are particularly prone to).

 

I do believe the following to be common (but not universal) Protestant beliefs:

*private Biblical interpretation, instead of interpretation only being done in the context of the overall church community, which is inevitable when there is no community standard for correct Biblical interpretation - as there deliberately is not in many Protestant churches (no creed but Christ, and such).

*Related to having no man-made creeds, the belief that proper Biblical interpretation consists of minimal outside man-made influence - you, your Bible, and the Holy Spirit as the ideal.

 

Not all Protestant churches reject the concept of man-made creeds and doctrinal statements - but many do :shrug:. And those that do, ime, generally subscribe to the above two beliefs - certainly private interpretation, anyway. And a rejection of man-made creeds as illegitimate does lend itself to rejecting all man-made commentaries, thus "you, your Bible, and the Holy Spirit" method of interpretation, though one doesn't have to, of course.

 

Anyway, if you are part of a church that deliberately has no creeds, but *does* have some sort of binding community standard for Biblical interpretation, how is that standard *not* a creed? And if you have no binding community standard to judge Biblical interpretations by, then it *is* effectively up to each individual to be their own standard (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) - what else is there?

[8circles]

I'm sorry if my wording was offensive :grouphug:. And, just ftr, I'm actually a cradle Lutheran, not Catholic ;).

 

I guess I'd better clarify a bit, as I suppose I smooshed a couple different beliefs together, plus some of the errors that those beliefs can be prone to (and all beliefs have errors they are particularly prone to).

 

I do believe the following to be common (but not universal) Protestant beliefs:

*private Biblical interpretation, instead of interpretation only being done in the context of the overall church community, which is inevitable when there is no community standard for correct Biblical interpretation - as there deliberately is not in many Protestant churches (no creed but Christ, and such).

*Related to having no man-made creeds, the belief that proper Biblical interpretation consists of minimal outside man-made influence - you, your Bible, and the Holy Spirit as the ideal.

 

Not all Protestant churches reject the concept of man-made creeds and doctrinal statements - but many do :shrug:. And those that do, ime, generally subscribe to the above two beliefs - certainly private interpretation, anyway. And a rejection of man-made creeds as illegitimate does lend itself to rejecting all man-made commentaries, thus "you, your Bible, and the Holy Spirit" method of interpretation, though one doesn't have to, of course.

 

Anyway, if you are part of a church that deliberately has no creeds, but *does* have some sort of binding community standard for Biblical interpretation, how is that standard *not* a creed? And if you have no binding community standard to judge Biblical interpretations by, then it *is* effectively up to each individual to be their own standard (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) - what else is there?

 

No, I get that you are Lutheran & not Catholic. I was just trying to think of another example from my perspective but I can't use Lutheran since I understand it.

 

I guess I don't understand your clarification. Lutheran is Protestant, as are Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. They have creeds - are they in the minority? Even non-denominational churches have creeds. Are you referring to UU churches or some Baptist, I think, that don't have creeds (I don't know that they done't)? I belong to a church that has minimal creeds - a branch of the Lutheran church Pietist movement. However, we are not encouraged to read the Bible in a vacuum. It isn't "whatever you think it means". We are encouraged to read the Bible on our own & bring our thoughts together during discussion with the objective of increasing our understanding of the scriptures - but questioning is not discouraged & if you simply cannot come to "proper" understanding then so be it. You can't make someone see something that they just cannot.

 

As I re-read, it seems you're only talking about creedless churches, right? I guess I'm not understanding how this becomes common to Protestants.

[forty-two]

No, I get that you are Lutheran & not Catholic. I was just trying to think of another example from my perspective but I can't use Lutheran since I understand it.

 

I guess I don't understand your clarification. Lutheran is Protestant, as are Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. They have creeds - are they in the minority? Even non-denominational churches have creeds. Are you referring to UU churches or some Baptist, I think, that don't have creeds (I don't know that they done't)? I belong to a church that has minimal creeds - a branch of the Lutheran church Pietist movement. However, we are not encouraged to read the Bible in a vacuum. It isn't "whatever you think it means". We are encouraged to read the Bible on our own & bring our thoughts together during discussion with the objective of increasing our understanding of the scriptures - but questioning is not discouraged & if you simply cannot come to "proper" understanding then so be it. You can't make someone see something that they just cannot.

 

As I re-read, it seems you're only talking about creedless churches, right? I guess I'm not understanding how this becomes common to Protestants.

I guess it's b/c, where I've lived, creed-less Christians (Baptists, Church of Christ) are the norm, and are the people who write most of the Christian books that one sees in Christian bookstores. That is the face of American evangelicalism everywhere I've been, and thus all my observations about generic Protestants were drawn from that. And it's my experience that lots of other Protestants are *really* influenced by that, even when it is against their church's teaching.

 

I'm in a decidedly non-Pietistic Lutheran denom ;), and I'd say that we are pretty close to what you described. Certainly you can't make anyone believe anything - but that doesn't change the right answer ;).

[Denise in Florida]

B/c in BSF, from what I understand, everybody comes to their own personal conclusion, and are not allowed to argue with what anyone else thinks, and are not allowed to bring any sort of church teaching into it. So everyone is studying the Bible in isolation - .

 

Almost but not quite. :001_smile: I have been a BSF group leader and am currently a class member for the Isaiah study (the program year runs from Sept to May). BSF studies use a four fold study approach. First read that week's section of scripture on your own, no commentaries, you can use an atlas or dictionary. The idea is to answer the weeks questions based on your understanding not anyone elses. Yes, the questions can be confusing and people can take different approaches.

 

Second, on class day, discuss the questions in a small group (around 15) the group leader keeps things moving but does not teach. Members are told not to state their denominations (sometimes it is obvious anyway :001_smile:) or use teachings from their pastors. The group discusses the questions and what the Bible says. This can be very informative particularly when women are using different translations. Some members have a different perspective but we tend to encourage and help each other refine our thoughts.

 

Third, return to the large group where the teaching leader gives a lecture on the text. The teaching leaders are women with Bible study experience and have training from headquarters but are not ministers (as far as i know).

 

Fourth, pick up the next lesson which contains extensive notes for the lesson just completed. The notes use commentaries and expert opinions.

 

Growth comes from learning the text from inside (what I can glean from the Word) out (group of peers, leader, commentaries). It has helped my own discernment of scripture.

 

BSF is theoretically non-denomination (and tries hard to welcome everyone who wants to learn) but they are protestant and In My Experience (may not be true of every group) have a Calvinist leaning.

 

I am not Calvinist but it has not been a problem for me. They empasize direct study of the Word.

[8circles]

Almost but not quite. :001_smile: I have been a BSF group leader and am currently a class member for the Isaiah study (the program year runs from Sept to May). BSF studies use a four fold study approach.

...

I am not Calvinist but it has not been a problem for me. They empasize direct study of the Word.

 

Thank you Denise. I suspected as much but have never attended myself so didn't want to presume. My mother is not a Calvinist either & it has never been a problem for her. Come to think of it, she was a (group?) leader for a while, too.

[Ellie]

Oh Catholics definitely DO believe in studying the Bible and there has been a HUGE surge in interest in the last couple decades. This myth comes from some twisting of historical facts. The church did forbid reading some Bibles in the past but that was because they were inaccurate or heretical translations. Also, much of this history of not reading the Bible personally comes from a time when books were so expensive that only the rich could afford them. The Catholic church does not recommend reading the Bible alone and putting personal interpretation above 2000 years of scholarship and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

As a cradle Catholic, other than reading the Gospels and studying them in my Catholic grade school, my first introduction to Bible study was at an evangelical church. My parish didn't offer anything more than a study of the Sunday readings and I wanted something more substantial than that. So, my former friend snookered me in ... I say snookered because her intent was to take me away from my "evil Catholicism" and get me "saved." Well, this study, based upon Kay Arthur, was definitely anti-Catholic. Lots of emphasis on the evils of Rome and how it was the anti-Christ, yada, yada, yada. I don't know if it was the Kay Arthur materials per se or the attitude of the leader and everyone else there. After a while, I figured out what was going on and left.

 

That experience did jumpstart an interest in learning more about my faith since I was a product of the wishy-washy catechesis of the '70's. I read books on fundamentalism's attack on Catholicism, Catholicism and the Bible, etc. I came out of it with a stronger Catholic faith and a yearning for a Catholic Bible study. About 8 years ago, our church started a new program with more intensive study. We started out with the more light weight (but valuable) Six Weeks with the Bible series. Then we did the entire Denver Catholic Bible Study under the supervision of Sr. Macrina Scott herself. Since that was a college level study, we did it in 6 years instead of 4 so that busy adults could handle the workload. This has been a Godsend for me. The Catholic perspective has been sooo incredibly important to me. So has the fellowship of other people who are walking this faith journey with me.

As a trained Precept Bible Study leader, I'd have to say that those attitudes were those of the people in the class and not Precept Ministires (although I haven't seen *all* the Precept studies so I can't say for sure, but I never saw anything specifically anti-Catholic when I was leading studies).

 

As a baby Catholic myself, I'm wanting something more. I don't know enough about the Church. Our parish is starting a history of the Church study this month, and I'm going to try to go to that. Also, I have a study guide to read through the Bible and the catechism...no, that's not right...doggonit, I don't have all my Catholic vocabulary right yet.:D Anyway, I hope to learn more this year.

[forty-two]

Almost but not quite. :001_smile: I have been a BSF group leader and am currently a class member for the Isaiah study (the program year runs from Sept to May). BSF studies use a four fold study approach. First read that week's section of scripture on your own, no commentaries, you can use an atlas or dictionary. The idea is to answer the weeks questions based on your understanding not anyone elses. Yes, the questions can be confusing and people can take different approaches.

 

Second, on class day, discuss the questions in a small group (around 15) the group leader keeps things moving but does not teach. Members are told not to state their denominations (sometimes it is obvious anyway :001_smile:) or use teachings from their pastors. The group discusses the questions and what the Bible says. This can be very informative particularly when women are using different translations. Some members have a different perspective but we tend to encourage and help each other refine our thoughts.

 

Third, return to the large group where the teaching leader gives a lecture on the text. The teaching leaders are women with Bible study experience and have training from headquarters but are not ministers (as far as i know).

 

Fourth, pick up the next lesson which contains extensive notes for the lesson just completed. The notes use commentaries and expert opinions.

 

Growth comes from learning the text from inside (what I can glean from the Word) out (group of peers, leader, commentaries). It has helped my own discernment of scripture.

 

BSF is theoretically non-denomination (and tries hard to welcome everyone who wants to learn) but they are protestant and In My Experience (may not be true of every group) have a Calvinist leaning.

 

I am not Calvinist but it has not been a problem for me. They empasize direct study of the Word.

Good to know :), though now I have a whole new set of misgivings wrt BSF ;).

 

A few questions: Do the leaders present multiple views, and if so, how wide a cross-section of Christianity are they drawn from? Ditto for the lesson notes from commentaries - and are they official BSF material, or leader-specific? I guess what I'm wondering is if they are non-denom in the Mere Christianity sense (which would be near impossible in practice with this kind of indepth study - Lewis himself said that mere Christianity was a like a hall with multiple rooms off it, you can't live in the hall, you have to pick a room), non-denom in the "present all sides" sense (and what sides do they focus on, as you can't present *all* of them), or non-denom in the sense of American non-denom churches, which tend to be Baptist/Pentecostal in leanings, and not remotely non-denom in the sense of Mere Christianity at all.

[Denise in Florida]

I wrote out a long reply and lost it. :confused:

 

Good to know :), though now I have a whole new set of misgivings wrt BSF ;).

I'll try to answer.

 

A few questions: Do the leaders present multiple views, and if so, how wide a cross-section of Christianity are they drawn from?

There are two types of leaders. The small group leader facilitates discussion but does not teach. They are drawn from multiple denominations. I believe there is an attempt to represent the denominations of the group as a whole. i.e., no one denomination dominates the leadership.

 

There is one Teaching Leader for the class as a whole (200 to 300). She writes and presents the lecture. I do not know how she is chosen and she does not mention her denomination. That said, I am sure there is some reflection of her doctrine in the lecture but the focus is on understanding the Word of God.

 

 

Ditto for the lesson notes from commentaries - and are they official BSF material, or leader-specific? Official BSF material from headquarters. They are fairly good at citing references used and will mention times when expert opinion does not agree.

 

I guess what I'm wondering is if they are non-denom in the Mere Christianity sense (which would be near impossible in practice with this kind of indepth study - Lewis himself said that mere Christianity was a like a hall with multiple rooms off it, you can't live in the hall, you have to pick a room), non-denom in the "present all sides" sense (and what sides do they focus on, as you can't present *all* of them), or non-denom in the sense of American non-denom churches, which tend to be Baptist/Pentecostal in leanings, and not remotely non-denom in the sense of Mere Christianity at all.

 

They want to be non-denominational :001_smile:, they try for balanced representation in leadership. Because people reflect the doctrine of their backgrounds and experience however, they are not 100% non-denom. IFKWIM. I would say American non-denom not Mere Christianity, but they try. I have a good understanding of my denomination and core beliefs (always trying to learn more) there have been a few times of conflict but I have not felt 'led astray'.

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

[Giraffe]

I'm the OP and the one who started the whole read the Bible with just yourself and the Holy Spirit controversy. I wasn't clear enough and I'm sorry.

 

I grew up Baptist and believing that you should read the Bible yourself. If you need interpretation, you can consult your pastor, concordances, get clarification on the words (what was the original Greek, Aramaic, etc.), but God must bring spiritual understanding. As an adult I became a Presbyterian and learned of things like the Westminster Confession of Faith and guidelines (I can't think of a better word right now) for interpreting and understanding the Bible. New concept for me.

 

I know a lot of Protestant churches have creeds, confessions of faith, etc. that they use to guide them. But when I was a girl/teenager, they didn't exist for me. It was the Bible, my pastor, his understanding, and mine (and Sunday School teachers, parents). Not a lot of guidelines.

 

The New Testament has always confused me. I'm much more comfortable in the OT. It just didn't jive for me in the NT. Too many holes, not enough solid answers. Just my experience.

 

The idea of Tradition - of information outside the Bible that might fill in those blanks fascinates me. And what I've heard here on this and other threads has indeed started to fill in spaces and explain verses that no one has been able to satisfactorily answer before (thinking about John 6 here). Sure, there will be more questions as I go along, and I may decide at the end of the journey that indeed I am a Protestant, sola scriptura and all. I doubt it, but it's possible. I am open to all possibilities.

 

Anyway - back to BSF and off that little tangent (sorry again!) - I will go forward with the study for now. I like the format Denise outlined and look forward to an in-depth study of the OT. Hopefully there will be less controversy in Isaiah than in something like The Gospel of John or Paul's Letter to the Romans. :D

[Giraffe]

Update:

 

Went to the Intro class. It is definitely Protestant (I knew that). I found it interesting, and will join if they have place for me (it's filled to capacity right now).

 

We'll see.

[Harriet Vane]

I was in BSF for four years, including a year on the leadership team as class secretary.

 

My first year's small group included at least one Catholic woman, and I knew of other Catholic women in my chapter at the time as well. The Catholic woman in my group was in BSF for many years, and she stated many times that her BSF studies actually enhanced her faith and she wished more Catholics would join.

 

BSF's formal policy is not to discuss ecumenical, doctrinal points, but rather to focus specifically on just what is in the passage being studied. The Bible study questions are from two perspectives: The questions ask about details of the Bible passage, and about 1/4 of the questions ask the participant to reflect in a more personal way (like if a passage is about keeping the Sabbath holy, there might be a few questions asking if YOU keep the Sabbath holy, and asking you to generate ideas for keeping the Sabbath set apart for God, etc.).

 

The BSF policy in this regard actually works quite well, IMO. Throughout my years with BSF I rubbed elbows with Catholics, charismatics, traditional Protestants (Episcopal, Methodist, etc.) as well as modern evangelicals and even a few hippies. All of us, no matter what denomination, benefit from careful study of the Bible.

[Harriet Vane]

One further note--any group, any person really, does "betray" their leanings unconsciously, whether Catholic or charismatic or whatever. However, I will say that BSF truly strives, intentionally, to be as non-denominational as humanly possible. I was on the leadership team and remember that we were specifically taught, repeatedly, to respect the different faith traditions and to keep the study as Bible-focused (rather than comparing points of church doctrine) as humanly possible. Individual denominations were not discussed by leaders in the meetings, and there was never, ever any bashing of any faith tradition. Bottom line: They do try, very hard, to keep it to a non-denominational Bible study.

[Harriet Vane]

Update:

 

Went to the Intro class. It is definitely Protestant (I knew that). I found it interesting, and will join if they have place for me (it's filled to capacity right now).

 

We'll see.

 

There will be a place for you soon. People do drop out for various reasons, and slots open up. They are usually able to work in everyone within a reasonable time. Hope you like it! :)

[OregonNative]

Let me know what you think of BSF. I joined last year and quit shortly thereafter. The time actually spent in a group going over the weeks study questions was hurried and minimal. I was pretty disappointed. I thought it was actually going to be a study-where things were discussed. Not just going in a circle where random ppl said there answers out loud and then being done.