Does scripture interpret scripture?

[JonNC]

=guanophore;9336693]YES. But then we get back to the definition of “Church”. We are in agreement that hermeneutics is the duty of the Church, but Catholics are not free to change the definition of “church” passed on to us by the Apostles. Church for the Aposltes was those in unity with them, and their successors, the bishops. The true Church was recognized this way, and members of it are not free to depart from this unity.

And the Lutheran reformers never sought to disconnect with it. Melanchthon makes this point in the Apology. Frankly, I’m often disturbed by some Lutherans who think this link - apostolic succession is undesirable, as that clearly conflicts not only with the historic Church, but also with our confessions.

During the Reformation, many were disgusted by the corruption of church officials, so a new definition of “church” was coined, so that those believers could seek out a “pure gospel” that was not victimized by human corruption. That new definition has opened the door for a plethora of divisions to occur.

There is clearly blame enough to go around.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Yes, you may rely on teachers to help you understand, but you are also free not to rely on teachers. You may ignore them all you want, and be your own teacher. It is your choice. This is how sola scriptura becomes solo scriptura.

And has been pointed out, that isn’t the case with Lutherans, not regarding Luther the man, but regarding the confessions.

Jon

 

[po18guy]

Yes, you may rely on teachers to help you understand, but you are also free not to rely on teachers. You may ignore them all you want, and be your own teacher. It is your choice. This is how sola scriptura becomes solo scriptura.

We have a choice of being obedient to the Church, or to ourselves. Jesus didn’t make salvation complicated. The least of us need not know the opinions of successive theologians in order to be saved. What we need is a Church with valid Sacraments, as established by Christ.

As well, it is good to note that theologians do not save us. Speaking of theologians, Fr. Benedict Groeschel almost killed me with a remark about them. In a talk on the three theological virtues of faith, hope and love, he said, “They are not called the three theological virtues because theologians necessarily have them” Almost fell out of my chain.

 

[Lincoln7]

Mack,

I may not completely understand it; especially as there are probably several varieties of the idea of predestination. My understanding is that some are predestined for salvation, and the others for damnation. If so, why have church, why have scripture, why have religion? God should more logically communicate directly to those people, instead of the indirect methods of written words, or other individuals in church. Why put people into anxiety over whether they are saved or not.

I understand 5 point Calvinism to teach that you can know in this life whether you are saved or not. Conversely, it also means that you can know in this life whether you are damned or not. What a thing to know, that for sure you are going to hell.

For predestination, Calvins chapter is here; m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.xxii.html
I always recommend Ligonier ministries for helping people understand a more reformed position on any given topic; ligonier.org/ - there are numerous explanatory articles on it there. As for your “Why’s?” Well Solo Deo Gloria would be my basic beginning, but I would also add, this argument would hold sway over any church which upholds any form of predestination, even the Thomistic understanding that is acceptable in the CC, would it not?

On your second paragraphs point on being terrified one is damned, again, could this not be the case for any Christian, to be sure they are damned, regardless of what Traditon they follow? Sadly the enemy accuses all of us and tempts us to despair. Hence why we cling to the Cross.

Regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

To be honest, I don’t see any difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura. In either case, you are permitted to rely on someone else’s viewpoints or strictly upon your own. It depends upon your personal preferences. If you don’t have to consult tradition or the reformers, why do so, if you like to form your own conclusions, or don’t like the conclusions of any other interpreter?

Oh but I do like the conclusions of interpreters, not all things in scripture are plain into themselves. I just don’t believe the CC is an infallible interpreter. Why rely on the Traditon and the reformers? Because they all showed incredible insight into scripture, and to chuck out all their wisdom seems naive to me.

Regards

Lincs

 

[mackbrislawn]

And has been pointed out, that isn’t the case with Lutherans, not regarding Luther the man, but regarding the confessions.

Jon

Exactly. Some choose to go with particular confessions, but others are free, on principle, to not do so.

We’re looking at not just Lutherans, but the whole spectrum of denominations, or non-denomiations. We’re looking at what the principle ultimately leads to, without regard to where certain people stop along the way.

 

[po18guy]

Exactly. Some choose to go with particular confessions, but others are free, on principle, to not do so.

We’re looking at not just Lutherans, but the whole spectrum of denominations, or non-denomiations. We’re looking at what the principle ultimately leads to, without regard to where certain people stop along the way.

The principle leads to entropy.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Mack,

For predestination, Calvins chapter is here; m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.xxii.html
I always recommend Ligonier ministries for helping people understand a more reformed position on any given topic; ligonier.org/ - there are numerous explanatory articles on it there. As for your “Why’s?” Well Solo Deo Gloria would be my basic beginning, but I would also add, this argument would hold sway over any church which upholds any form of predestination, even the Thomistic understanding that is acceptable in the CC, would it not?

On your second paragraphs point on being terrified one is damned, again, could this not be the case for any Christian, to be sure they are damned, regardless of what Traditon they follow? Sadly the enemy accuses all of us and tempts us to despair. Hence why we cling to the Cross.

Regards

Lincs

Thanks. I’ll follow the links you provided. Maybe they will answer questions I’m asking in regards to your second paragraph.

No, thiis would not be the case with any Christian, because these other Christians do not claim to know whether they are locked into salvation or not. Therefore they can’t be terrified, because they are not sure they are damned, unlike Calvinism. With Calvism, why cling to the cross, since you are saved or damned regardless?

 

[JonNC]

Exactly. Some choose to go with particular confessions, but others are free, on principle, to not do so.

We’re looking at not just Lutherans, but the whole spectrum of denominations, or non-denomiations. We’re looking at what the principle ultimately leads to, without regard to where certain people stop along the way.

I understand, Mack, Ijust don’t want the two principals to be confused here.

Jon

 

[mackbrislawn]

Oh but I do like the conclusions of interpreters, not all things in scripture are plain into themselves. I just don’t believe the CC is an infallible interpreter. Why rely on the Traditon and the reformers? Because they all showed incredible insight into scripture, and to chuck out all their wisdom seems naive to me.

Regards

Lincs

Well, I agree. We can consult the wisdom of the past if we wish. And you and I wish. However,we are also free to discard things of the past that we don’t like. If we don’t like any of it, we can neglect the past entirely. For you and me, that would be naive, but not for many others. It is all Babylon the Great and we must start over. Mormons and JW’s do so.

 

[Lincoln7]

Thanks. I’ll follow the links you provided. Maybe they will answer questions I’m asking in regards to your second paragraph.

No, thiis would not be the case with any Christian, because these other Christians do not claim to know whether they are locked into salvation or not. Therefore they can’t be terrified, because they are not sure they are damned, unlike Calvinism. With Calvism, why cling to the cross, since you’re are saved or damned regardless?

Well those clinging to the cross are not exhibiting something that those who care little for the faith tend to do… I would defiantly read the links though, regarding how far one should go in attempting to peer into the will of God and individual election.

Regards

Lincs

 

[Lochias]

While Luther was a central player, to be sure, the Lutheran Church is not Luther. There are things that Luther said that is not accepted within Lutheran teaching. Of Luther’s writings, only three are part of the Book of Concord.
The Augsburg Confessions makes this important point:
*Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches. *

Of all the communions whose roots are in the reformation, the Lutheran Reformation strived to do as is quoted above. Catholics may not view it this way, but I would contend that not many have acutally read the Augsburg Confessions, and probably not even the Confutation.

Jon

I remain unconvinced, but I will read the Augsburg Confessions, the Confutation and more of Lutheran Church history so that I may at some point make at least a reasoned argument. I’m merely observing generalities at this point.

Thanks for your time, Jon.

 

[JonNC]

I remain unconvinced, but I will read the Augsburg Confessions, the Confutation and more of Lutheran Church history so that I may at some point make at least a reasoned argument. I’m merely observing generalities at this point.

Thanks for your time, Jon.

My pleasure.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

f

Yep, an honest question. It does seem to come down to that. I am personably not comfortable with Calvinism, and find it absolutely repugnant. If scripture teaches it, then scripture is wrong. But scripture is not wrong, so Calvinism is wrong. To me, Calvinism seems to negate the very reason for religion, and for scripture.

However, some find it congenial, for whatever reason. But for me it is a great mystery why.

Calvin was indeed a very religious man, and was completely sold out to Christianity as he understood it. He labored tirelessly to write, teach, and attempt to infuse the culture with Christ. He certainly can’t be faulted for lack of zealousness. For him, the religious life was all that counted!

 

[guanophore]

Indeed, hence why I align myself with the historic reformed creeds. To lay down a summary of belief which accuratley reflect the teachings of scripture.

You too are free to also ignore teachers and become your own, no? Im not going to try and defend solo scriptura as I don’t adhere to it.

Lincs

Yes, the Apostles taught that being created in the image and likeness of God meant that we have free will, and can either reject or accept Him. Every human person has the freedom to ignore the teachers appointed by Christ, and to seek out their own, or become their own.

For Catholics, though, one who does such a thing has left the faith.

 

[guanophore]

Oh but I do like the conclusions of interpreters, not all things in scripture are plain into themselves. I just don’t believe the CC is an infallible interpreter. Why rely on the Traditon and the reformers? Because they all showed incredible insight into scripture, and to chuck out all their wisdom seems naive to me.

Regards

Lincs

And yet, the incredible insight of 2000 years of saints, doctors, and faithful Christians is chucked out, in order to create Calvanism.

 

[pismopal]

Yes, scripture interprets scripture. It’s called the analogy of scripture and is one of the first things you learn in any hermeneutics class.

I am guessing that those people who handle snakes in Appalachian religious services have not taken any hermeneutic classes.

 

[Lincoln7]

Yes, the Apostles taught that being created in the image and likeness of God meant that we have free will, and can either reject or accept Him. Every human person has the freedom to ignore the teachers appointed by Christ, and to seek out their own, or become their own.

For Catholics, though, one who does such a thing has left the faith.

Ha I will leave free will debates out of this thread As well as synergism and monergism discussions.

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

And yet, the incredible insight of 2000 years of saints, doctors, and faithful Christians is chucked out, in order to create Calvanism.

Well in the 1500 years of Christian history leading up to Calvin, a lot of good was said, and a lot of not so good, Calvin quotes from the fathers extensively.

And the idea that his theology is unheard of prior to the man himself is also a tad off the mark, Augustine laid its foundations over 1000 years earlier.

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[guanophore]

Well in the 1500 years of Christian history leading up to Calvin, a lot of good was said, and a lot of not so good, Calvin quotes from the fathers extensively.

And the idea that his theology is unheard of prior to the man himself is also a tad off the mark, Augustine laid its foundations over 1000 years earlier.

Kind regards

Lincs

Augustine was Catholic, and the Catholic Church is the context of all that he wrote. Taking his writings out of context, and building a non-catholic edifice upon them does not make Calvins ideas Apostolic. The real challenge Calvin missed was understanding Augustines work in the context of the Catholic faith. Had he been able to do that, he would truly have been a valuable Reformer of the Church. As it is, he separated himself from the Apostolic faith, and created new doctrines, different than those delivered to us by the Apostles. One of those departures was from the Apostolic injunction that Scripture is to be interpreted in the light of Sacred Tradition.

You are right, a discussion of free will far exceeds the bounds of the thread. I just wanted to make the point that people who depart from the Sacred Tradition depart from the One Faith delivered to us by the Aposltes.