All are given the Spirit of Interpretation

[nickybr38]

How do you respond to the idea that all are given the ability to read and understand Scripture accurately?

I recently got into a discussion with a Protestant who strongly believes each Christian is guided by the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture and NO outside help is needed to understand the deeper theological concepts contained therein… actually, I’m pretty sure she dismisses theology as well.

I just didn’t know how to respond. I quoted a verse where Philip runs into a man who is reading Scripture but does not understand and another verse that says we should not rely on our own wisdom but what she took away from those is;

A: Philip led the man to read Scripture (I tried pointing out the man was reading PRIOR to Philip’s arrival and he STILL didn’t understand but she refused to see it)

B: God GIVES her wisdom to understand, therefore it’s not her own wisdom but God’s wisdom that helps her interpret Scripture.

What do you think? Worth debating further or should I give up on this one?

 

[kd5glx]

Two verses come to mind other than the one you mentioned about the eunich reading scripture.

2 Peter 3:16 (RSVCE)
16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
1 Timothy 3:15 (RSVCE)
15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

You certainly have a challenge before you, but with patience and much prayer you can plant a seed.
There are great sources to study here on Catholic Answers in the Library section on Sola Scriptura or the Bible Alone.
You can even check out this web site for free audio www.biblechristiansociety.com

You can ask your friend for proof from the Bible that shows her position. Then spend time to look at it closely because it will not say what she really wants it to say.

In my experience the best they come up with is,
2 Timothy 3:15–17 (RSVCE)
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

But if you look closely is says that Scripture is “profitable” and is not completely sufficient.
And also at the time of this writing in 2 Timothy the New Testament was not completed so the Scripture mentioned had to be the Old Testament and before Christ’s coming.

Take your time and study. Formulate your answers and when your ready get back with her. There is no rush. Just let her know you will have an answer for her and that you have not forgotten about your talk, and then do your homework.
You may find that after you spend this time learning you will have deepened your own faith as well.

 

[fiat88]

I have been looking up the same topic myself today, i found this lovely article which might help.

catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/Self%20Interpretation%20of%20the%20Bible.html

There are also a few good bible quotes warning on self interpretation of scripture.

2 Peter 3:16-18
16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

I have actually been searching for a bible quote i know exists about a man who was told to ask the church for clarification on scripture when he couldnt figure it out himself. Cant for the life of me find it though…can anyone help me out if you know what which verse im talking about??

 

[kd5glx]

Oh and by the way, you might even give her a copy of some of the audio and tracts that you find instead of trying to talk it thru yourself. Sometimes the wall will go down if they have time on their own without having to defend something that they obviously deeply feel as truth.

And take a look at your signature statement on your post. That’s powerful medicine.

And for Fiatt88
Matthew 18:16–18 (RSVCE)
16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

[clem456]

Is it fair to say the Apostle Paul was well versed in the scriptures? Yet he persecuted the Church. “Saul why do you persecute Me?” His personal inspiration at that time was a little off.

So, the man that wrote the foundation for much of Christian theology was blinded, and sent to the Church, so that he might learn the scriptures according to Jesus Christ, through the interpretation of the Church.

 

[Gorgias]

I quoted a verse where Philip runs into a man who is reading Scripture but does not understand … but what she took away from those is;

A: Philip led the man to read Scripture (I tried pointing out the man was reading PRIOR to Philip’s arrival and he STILL didn’t understand but she refused to see it)

You might wish to point out to her that, when the Ethiopian eunuch didn’t understand, the Holy Spirit sent him an ordained man to preach to him – that is, the HS sent a deacon of the Church, and who had authority to preach and to interpret Scripture. Now, if she’s willing to accept Scriptural instruction from a man ordained by apostolic authority, well… we’ve got a wealth of instruction to share with her…!

 

[TimothyH]

Is it fair to say the Apostle Paul was well versed in the scriptures? Yet he persecuted the Church. “Saul why do you persecute Me?” His personal inspiration at that time was a little off.

So, the man that wrote the foundation for much of Christian theology was blinded, and sent to the Church, so that he might learn the scriptures according to Jesus Christ, through the interpretation of the Church.

This is an extremely good apologetic.

Paul was a scripture study prodigy and he still didn’t see correctly. He was sent to the Church.

The only hole I can see is that someone might argue that there was no scripture so Paulw as sent to the Apostles to learn. After scripture was written and after the Apostles died, people went to the scriptures.

But it is an excellent apologetic.

-Tim-

 

[MarcoPolo]

While it is possible for any individual to derive a correct interpretation of Scripture…The Spirit is, assuredly, also given to individual Christians, so that their hearts can “burn within them” (Lk. 24:32) as they pray and prayerfully study the Scripture within the context of their own personal lives. This is why the Second Vatican Council insisted that access to Scripture be facilitated in every possible way (<Dei Verbum,> 22; 25). This kind of reading, it should be noted, is never completely private, for the believer always reads and interprets Scripture within the faith of the church and then brings back to the community the fruit of that reading for the enrichment of the common faith. (Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1994)…there is no charism of infallibility in the form of a special protection given to individuals at large. In other words, it is certainly possible - and quite obvious in light of the diversity of Christian "doctrines - that wrong interpretations are bountiful.

As well, earnest Christians have come up with contradicting doctrines, each claiming to be led by the same Spirit. As the 2 Peter verse quoted earlier says, there are some who distort the Scripture to their own destruction.

So when one Christian says the Eucharist is normatively necessary for salvation and another Christian says it is not, but rather a mere symbol, which one is being led by the Spirit? Your friend ends up simply arguing “I have the Spirit and you don’t.” But that idea is a mere recipe for a stalemate, is it not? Aside from presenting sound exegesis, the early Church, when confronted with such competing doctrines, appealed to the Church bearing apostolic succession, i.e. that Church whose roots lead back to the base which is Christ.

 

[dee_burk]

How do you respond to the idea that all are given the ability to read and understand Scripture accurately?

I recently got into a discussion with a Protestant who strongly believes each Christian is guided by the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture and NO outside help is needed to understand the deeper theological concepts contained therein… actually, I’m pretty sure she dismisses theology as well.

What do you think? Worth debating further or should I give up on this one?

If she is correct, how does she explain differing interpretations by the one and only Holy Spirit?

In other words, if every human read the exact same scriptures and was lead by the same Holy Spirit, everybody would have the same interpretation…

 

[TimothyH]

It is also important to point out that the Catholic Church does not prohibit personal interpretation of Scripture, but only that the Church recommends that we check it against the teaching of the Church to make sure that we are not in error.

Restated in a positive way, we can interpret scripture all day long and are blessed with an authority by which we can know with certainty that our interpretation is not erroneous.

-Tim-

 

[Gorgias]

This is an extremely good apologetic.

Paul was a scripture study prodigy and he still didn’t see correctly. He was sent to the Church.

The only hole I can see is that someone might argue that there was no scripture so Paulw as sent to the Apostles to learn. After scripture was written and after the Apostles died, people went to the scriptures.

Hmm… I don’t think that this one will work too well. It would be too easy to claim that Saul was not yet baptized, and therefore, had not yet received the Holy Spirit. It’s the post-baptismal reception of the Spirit that is claimed to permit (any)one to correctly interpret Scripture…

 

[Gorgias]

If she is correct, how does she explain differing interpretations by the one and only Holy Spirit?

In other words, if every human read the exact same scriptures and was lead by the same Holy Spirit, everybody would have the same interpretation…

Clearly, not all are as Spirit-filled as they might wish to think…

 

[TimothyH]

Hmm… I don’t think that this one will work too well. It would be too easy to claim that Saul was not yet baptized, and therefore, had not yet received the Holy Spirit. It’s the post-baptismal reception of the Spirit that is claimed to permit (any)one to correctly interpret Scripture…

It should work for those who don’t believe in sacramental baptism. If baptism is symbolic then there is no reciept of the Holy Spirit at baptism.

Even those who believe in the reciept of the Holy Spirit at the time one begins to believe or at the time one begins to have faith, such as some sola fide Christians do, should agree that Saul had faith at the moment he was blinded, or shorly after.

Again, it is important to start such a discussion from the point of view of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. We can sometimes find ourselves defending something which the Church does not teach.

Catholics can interpret scripture all we want. One cannot read the Bible without interpreting it in some rudimentary way. But we have a guide against which we can and should check our teaching and an authority by which we may know with absolute certainty that we are not in error. That is actually what the Church teaches.

The Church in no way says that we can’t interpret Scripture, but gives us a framework for doing so an a body of doctrine against which we can check our intepretation. That is actually what the Church teaches.

-Tim-

 

[kkollwitz]

“All are given the Spirit of Interpretation.” So- the pope is *at least *as infallible as anyone else?

I’m also reminded of: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

 

[Gorgias]

It should work for those who don’t believe in sacramental baptism. If baptism is symbolic then there is no reciept of the Holy Spirit at baptism.

Even those who believe in the reciept of the Holy Spirit at the time one begins to believe or at the time one begins to have faith, such as some sola fide Christians do, should agree that Saul had faith at the moment he was blinded, or shorly after.

OK… but isn’t your point that he inaccurately interpreted Scripture *prior to * his conversion? If so, then the argument doesn’t hold – it’s still the post-conversion (or post-baptismal) interpretation that’s in play here, and Paul’s post-baptismal preaching is Scriptural!

 

[clem456]

The argument that any baptized person can correctly interpret scripture falls flat on it’s face. It is self-evident if you look at all the baptized loose cannons who use scripture to justify all kinds of crazy ideas…

Saul is not baptized, but he does have a private revelation from our Lord. Even so, our Lord sends him blind to the Church. The blindness speaks volumes, in essence
“what you see now is ignorance, come to my Church and regain true sight.”

Our Lord could have simply instilled in Saul the Gospel and set him to preaching and writing, but he did not. A good lesson for us.

 

[TimothyH]

The argument that any baptized person can correctly interpret scripture falls flat on it’s face. It is self-evident if you look at all the baptized loose cannons who use scripture to justify all kinds of crazy ideas…

Saul is not baptized, but he does have a private revelation from our Lord. Even so, our Lord sends him blind to the Church. The blindness speaks volumes, in essence
“what you see now is ignorance, come to my Church and regain true sight.”

Our Lord could have simply instilled in Saul the Gospel and set him to preaching and writing, but he did not. A good lesson for us.

The Church does not teach that correct interpretation of Scripture is impossible apart from the Church.

Many people can and do interpret scripture correctly every day. I correctly interpret scripture when I read it as I do, every day at the Breakfast table. No one from the Church is looking over my shoulder. I know monks who meditate on the scriptures two hours every day, and no one from the Vatican is looking over their shoulders.

The Church does not provide a list of interpretations. What the Church does is provide a framework for proper interpretation so that one does not fall into error.

99.9% of the Catholics who say that only the Church can correctly interpret scripture never open a Bible to read it and never heard of a framework for correct interpretation. They never heard of the “Three legged stool” or the “Senses of Scripture” and don’t even know why scripture was written.

-Tim-

 

[clem456]

The Church does not teach that correct interpretation of Scripture is impossible apart from the Church.

Many people can and do interpret scripture correctly every day. I correctly interpret scripture when I read it as I do, every day at the Breakfast table. No one from the Church is looking over my shoulder. I know monks who meditate on the scriptures two hours every day, and no one from the Vatican is looking over their shoulders.

The Church does not provide a list of interpretations. What the Church does is provide a framework for proper interpretation so that one does not fall into error.

99.9% of the Catholics who say that only the Church can correctly interpret scripture never open a Bible to read it and never heard of a framework for correct interpretation. They never heard of the “Three legged stool” or the “Senses of Scripture” and don’t even know why scripture was written.

-Tim-

Gotcha. What I should have said is that baptism does not guarantee a person correct interpretation.

 

[steve_b]

How do you respond to the idea that all are given the ability to read and understand Scripture accurately?

One only has to observe the 10’s of thousands of divisions in christianity, all teaching different and opposing things, to debunk that notion. The Holy Spirit isn’t the author of division.

 

[dee_burk]

Clearly, not all are as Spirit-filled as they might wish to think…

Exactly, thats why i also like Tradition with the capital T… handed down directly from the big 12 that walked with our Lord personally