Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lincoln7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
IggyAntiochus said:
I suppose that is one application of it. I wouldn’t restrict it to that, however.
Click to expand...
So how did the inspired writer use “Scripture interprets Scripture” to pen “Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?”

That’s an obscure verse if there ever was one! What Scripture did the inspired writer use to write about baptism of the dead?
 
PRmerger said:
That’s fine, Iggy. But they also, clearly practiced using Tradition to inspire their own writing of revelation.
Click to expand...
All of it was tradition, if you want to use that term. Might be harder to justify it in the case of Christ because they received it directly from Him, as opposed to it passing to someone else. It would certainly apply in the case of the disciples who wrote Scripture, like Luke or Mark.
Take the verse I showed you in Acts. It is not written anywhere that Jesus said those words. (Matthew 10? not quite ;)) The apostle knew this from…
Click to expand...
wait for it…😃
Click to expand...
Tradition.
Click to expand...
No, Paul knew it from…

wait for it…

The lips of Christ 😛
And saying, “Well, is it in Scripture or isn’t it” is missing the point. JESUS didn’t say it in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. But we know he said it because the inspired writer heard it from Tradition.
Click to expand...
Paul didn’t learn it from tradition.
So to apply your paradigm:
Why would I use a hermeneutic that is different from the one the sacred writers themselves employed?
Click to expand...
Sacred Tradition is what gave us the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
I am not even sure why you’re arguing the Scripture interprets Scripture principle anyway LoL
 
PRmerger said:
So how did the inspired writer use “Scripture interprets Scripture” to pen “Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?”

That’s an obscure verse if there ever was one! What Scripture did the inspired writer use to write about baptism of the dead?
Click to expand...
It might be easier if you gave an example where an inspired author did use prior Scripture to explain current revelation, like the dozens of interpretations of OT verses by the apostles to show how they prophesied or prefigured Christ? As opposed to selecting a verse where they don’t.
 
PRmerger said:
I’ll give you a list of random NT books, Iggy, and you tell me which ones are more central.

And also tell me how you know.

3 John,
Romans,
Matthew,
Acts.
Galatians,
Ephesians,
and 1 Peter

(Incidentally, you ought to keep in mind Jesus’ words in Matthew 4:4, about our living by EVERY word that comes from the mouth of God. Now, if you’re going to tell me here that Matthew is one of the books that we can put to the perimeter, then I guess you’ll be able to dismiss that statement a bit more easily. :D)
Click to expand...
That’s applying an and/or where there isn’t one. Yes, we do study and mediate on all of Scripture, but some Scripture preaches the Christ and His gospel more clearly than others. All of this is not denied by either Protestant or Catholic theologies. I am not sure why it seems like you’re picking a debate where there isn’t one.
 
IggyAntiochus said:
I am not even sure why you’re arguing the Scripture interprets Scripture principle anyway LoL
Click to expand...
Because it’s one of the pillars of Sola Scriptura, according to your Lutheran website cited by Lincs.

And if it falls, well…

another nail in the coffin for SS.
 
PRmerger said:
Because it’s one of the pillars of Sola Scriptura, according to your Lutheran website cited by Lincs.

And if it falls, well…

another nail in the coffin for SS.
Click to expand...
Does it fall when Catholics do it, too? Because you do.
 
IggyAntiochus said:
It might be easier if you gave an example where an inspired author did use prior Scripture to explain current revelation, like the dozens of interpretations of OT verses by the apostles to show how they prophesied or prefigured Christ? As opposed to selecting a verse where they don’t.
Click to expand...
But, even then, it’s NOT an example of “Scripture interprets Scripture” because, according to your Lutheran website, that paradigm is for us to use when we don’t understand an obscure verse. We are to find another verse (a clearer one) that supports it.

That’s not biblical, and it’s illogical. Interpreting the complex based on the simple is an incorrect approach to understanding a text.

Besides, if you don’t understand what it means, how can you know what Scripture verse is a clearer version of it? That’s just :whacky:
 
IggyAntiochus said:
That’s applying an and/or where there isn’t one. Yes, we do study and mediate on all of Scripture, but some Scripture preaches the Christ and His gospel more clearly than others. All of this is not denied by either Protestant or Catholic theologies. I am not sure why it seems like you’re picking a debate where there isn’t one.
Click to expand...
Because, again, this is a pillar of SS that is espoused by your Lutheran website.

In fact, this website goes so far to say that the Gospel of John is central. (By implication, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are more peripheral!) :eek:
**Originally posted in the website cited by Lincs, and proclaiming Luther theology: ** Be aware that Some Books of the Bible are More Central than Other Books of the Bible. Luther saw that some Bible books were better at revealing Christ and his work than others. In an introduction to one of his Bible translations, Luther explained that John’s Gospel, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and 1 Peter contained all one needed to know about Christ. On the other hand, the Book of James is “really an epistle of straw, when compared with these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.”
Click to expand...
 
PRmerger said:
But, even then, it’s NOT an example of “Scripture interprets Scripture” because, according to your Lutheran website, that paradigm is for us to use when we don’t understand an obscure verse. We are to find another verse (a clearer one) that supports it.
Click to expand...
I don’t run the website! LoL

Seriously, though…I would simply use it to mean that revelation is a whole and is unified, so Scripture cannot be taken to say something that contradicts another part of Scripture, or isolating a passage and running with it, despite other areas of Scripture clarifying it or putting it in the proper context.
 
PRmerger said:
Because, again, this is a pillar of SS that is espoused by your Lutheran website.

In fact, this website goes so far to say that the Gospel of John is central. (By implication, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are more peripheral!) :eek:
Click to expand...
That isn’t what it says. It says that one could read John and know all that is needed for salvation (which John states is his purpose for writing it).
 
PRmerger said:
In fact, this website goes so far to say that the Gospel of John is central. (By implication, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are more peripheral!) :eek:
Click to expand...
I don’t think the website is comparing John with the three synoptics, either. It’s probably comparing it to other books such as 2 Peter, or Amos from the OT.

Would you agree with this statement in the Catholic Catechism?

“The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures ‘because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior’”.
 
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Really? Where does Scripture explicitly teach or any of the 12 teach such a position?
Click to expand...
Iggy:
No one is saying it does.
Click to expand...
Which means absolutely not a single person said it or believes it.
Quote:Iggy
It’s a matter of historical reality.
Click to expand...
Yet within the same stroke…it is a historical reality? Which really means…someone is saying otherwise and in this is case it would be you. In order to be a historical reality,I am curious why scripture makes no mention of it or any of the 12 or any ecumenical council?
Quote:Iggy
Oral tradition is not written down. Written sources are always more accurate than oral information.
Click to expand...
Really? Written sources are more accurate? So everything Abraham and the Jews passed on orally is very doubtful and not very accurate? What written sources do we have from Abraham?
 
PRmerger said:
But, even then, it’s NOT an example of “Scripture interprets Scripture” because, according to your Lutheran website, that paradigm is for us to use when we don’t understand an obscure verse. We are to find another verse (a clearer one) that supports it.

That’s not biblical, and it’s illogical. Interpreting the complex based on the simple is an incorrect approach to understanding a text.

Besides, if you don’t understand what it means, how can you know what Scripture verse is a clearer version of it? That’s just :whacky:
Click to expand...
Do you agree with this, PR?

If we cannot find the solutions for all the questions raised in the Scriptures, let us not seek for another God than he-who-is, for this would be the worst impiety. We must leave such matters as these to the God who made it and correctly realize that the scriptures are perfect, since they were spoken by God’s Word and his Spirit, while we, as we are inferior and more recent than God’s word ahd his Spirit, need to receive the knowledge of his mysteries. And it is not remarkable if we suffer this ignorance in spiritual and celestial matters and all those that have to be revealed, when even among matters before our feet — I mean those in this creation, which are touched and seen by us and are with us — many escape our knowledge and we entrust them to God; for he surpasses us all….

If therefore, even in this created world there are matters reserved for God and others also coming under our knowledge, what harm is done if in questions raised by the scriptures (which are entirely spiritual) we resolve some by God’s grace but leave others to God, not only in this age but in the age to come, so that God may be always teaching and man always learning from God? As the apostle said, when the partial is destroyed these will continue: faith, hope, love. For faith in our Master will always remain firm, assuring us that he is the only true God, and that we should always love him, since he is the only Father, and that we should hope to receive and learn more from God, for he is good and has unlimited riches and a kingdom without end and immeasurable knowledge. **If, then, as we have said, we leave certain questions to God, we shall preserve our faith and remain free from peril. All Scripture, given to us by God, will be found consistent. The parables will agree with the clear statements and the clear passages will explain the parables. Through the polyphony of the texts a single harmonious melody will sound in us, praising in hymns the God who made everything.
**
(“Irenaeus of Lyons,” “Against Heresies,” 2.28.3, Robert M. Grant translation, pgs. 117-118.)
 
IggyAntiochus said:
I don’t think the website is comparing John with the three synoptics, either. It’s probably comparing it to other books such as 2 Peter, or Amos from the OT.

Would you agree with this statement in the Catholic Catechism?

“The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures ‘because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior’”.
Click to expand...
Yes,but I do not believe the church is saying they are more important than other books. I know what you mean, but it can be dangerous to assume only a few books are vital.
 
IggyAntiochus said:
I lost the context of this post, Nicea. What were we discussing? That was like 6 pages ago now lol
Click to expand...
Do not worry Iggy. It is no big deal. Let us carry on. By the way, I do not mean any malice or to put you down or offend you. Are you my brother in Christ.

Peace
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top