Does scripture interpret scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Phyllo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
guanophore said:
Thank you.

What you have described here is what Catholics call Sacred Tradition. It is the Revelation by God of Himself.

So, how did people get saved before the NT canon was developed?
Click to expand...
Probably the same/ similar way that Phillip explained salvation ( in that case using the book of Isaiah) to the Ethiopian.
… and Jesus showed the two disciples, walking to Emmaus, the meaning of the events of the previous week … using the scripture.
 
1voice said:
Probably the same thing that Phillip did when he saw the Ethiopian eunich on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza.
Click to expand...
The Eunuch sought the faith from one to whom it was committed by Christ. I think you are right. Up until the Reformation, people sought the faith from an Apostolic source. During the Reformation, people took it upon themselves to redesign the gospel message, departing from that which was once for all deposited with the Church.

Since that time, people have been progressively departing from the faith that was believed and taught by the Apostles, creating more and more splinters in the Body. Now we have come full circle, and ancient heresies are again manifesting themselves, heresies that were defeated by the early chuch using Sacred Tradition, before the Canon was formed. The Sacred Tradition was not “dissolved” after the Scriptures were canonized.
 
1voice said:
Probably the same thing that Phillip did when he saw the Ethiopian eunich on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza.
Click to expand...
Ah. So what you are describing is the very definition of Tradition, yes?

The Ethiopian eunuch could not read the Scriptures and come to an understanding of salvation. He needed someone to instruct him, yes?
 
PRmerger said:
Ah. So what you are describing is the very definition of Tradition, yes?

The Ethiopian eunuch could not read the Scriptures and come to an understanding of salvation. He needed someone to instruct him, yes?
Click to expand...
?
You are responding as if there were some hidden message in the fact that Paul the Apostle said “Who can hear … without someone telling them”?
 
1voice said:
?
You are responding as if there were some hidden message in the fact that Paul the Apostle said “Who can hear … without someone telling them”?
Click to expand...
Paul was authorized to preach by the Church. He spoke very disparagingly about those who had taken it upon themselves to preach the Gospel that were unauthorized. Jesus commissioned the Apostles to preach and teach the Gospel. They committed this charge to their successors, the Apostles.

Scripture was never intended to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it. In separating it, those who use the Scriptures wander further and futher from the Apostolic faith.
 
guanophore said:
Paul was authorized to preach by the Church. He spoke very disparagingly about those who had taken it upon themselves to preach the Gospel that were unauthorized. Jesus commissioned the Apostles to preach and teach the Gospel. They committed this charge to their successors, the Apostles.

Scripture was never intended to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it. In separating it, those who use the Scriptures wander further and futher from the Apostolic faith.
Click to expand...
Youve managed to completely change the subject. 👍
 
1voice said:
?
You are responding as if there were some hidden message in the fact that Paul the Apostle said “Who can hear … without someone telling them”?
Click to expand...
I am simply trying to show you that even if you ostensibly reject the Catholic position regarding Sacred Tradition, in your posts you acknowledge the truth of the Catholic position regarding Sacred Tradition.

Just sayin’… 🤷
 
Lincoln7 said:
My readings of Calvin seem to bring out the Love of God in a profound way; God would send his Only Son to die for me, and by his grace alone, choose to welcome me into his family. That’s incredible.

Lincs
Click to expand...
Yes, it is incredible.

That is, for you. However, not for me. I am obviously one of the reprobate, therefore God did not send his son to die for me, nor welcome me into his family. No wonder the readings of Calvin do not bring out the Love of God for me.

That’s why I keep asking the question, with no response. Are there any true believers in Calvinism who also believe they are of the reprobate?
 
1voice said:
Probably the same thing that Phillip did when he saw the Ethiopian eunich on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza.
Click to expand...
And in this we see that it was not through Scripture alone that God’s Word was revealed.

That’s the Catholic position. 👍
 
PRmerger said:
I am simply trying to show you that even if you ostensibly reject the Catholic position regarding Sacred Tradition, in your posts you acknowledge the truth of the Catholic position regarding Sacred Tradition.

Just sayin’… 🤷
Click to expand...
You are very confusing.
 
PRmerger said:
And in this we see that it was not through Scripture alone that God’s Word was revealed.

That’s the Catholic position. 👍
Click to expand...
Oh, I think I get it. You are refuting the Sola Scriptra thing.

Just because someone explains something doesnt mean that they are the source.
 
guanophore said:
Paul was authorized to preach by the Church. He spoke very disparagingly about those who had taken it upon themselves to preach the Gospel that were unauthorized.
Click to expand...
Where?
I know that he warned of false teaching … that is still true.

I dont ever remember Paul speaking disparagingly of Ananias of Damascus.
guanophore said:
Jesus commissioned the Apostles to preach and teach the Gospel. They committed this charge to their successors, the Apostles.

Scripture was never intended to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it. In separating it, those who use the Scriptures wander further and futher from the Apostolic faith.
Click to expand...
The great commission was directed at about 500 people the day Jesus ascended.
 
1voice said:
Youve managed to completely change the subject. 👍
Click to expand...
On the contrary, Sacred Tradition has EVERYTHING to do with whether or not Scripture interprets Scripture. Scripture was never meant to be separated from it, because it is the lens through which we understand what is written. When the proper glasses are missing, then the reader misunderstands what is written.
 
guanophore said:
On the contrary, Sacred Tradition has EVERYTHING to do with whether or not Scripture interprets Scripture. Scripture was never meant to be separated from it, because it is the lens through which we understand what is written. When the proper glasses are missing, then the reader misunderstands what is written.
Click to expand...
Amen! 👍. One United Catholic Church, and many many protestant churches.
 
1voice said:
Oh, I think I get it. You are refuting the Sola Scriptra thing.
Click to expand...
Not really, I was responding to the thread topic. I will grant you, tho, that the thread topic is one of the principles used in SS.
1voice said:
Just because someone explains something doesnt mean that they are the source.
Click to expand...
Exactly! so, when we get explanations from people who are not commissioned by the Source, they may not represent what the Source intended.
1voice said:
I dont ever remember Paul speaking disparagingly of Ananias of Damascus.
Click to expand...
No, but Ananias was a foundation stone of the Church. He laid hands upon Paul, and revealed to him the Word of God. For the early Christians, the True Church could be identified by those who were in communion with the successors of the Apostles - the Bishops.
1voice said:
The great commission was directed at about 500 people the day Jesus ascended.
Click to expand...
Yes, but none of them ever functioned in separation from the Apostles, or the Bishops appointed by them.
 
1voice said:
Oh, I think I get it. You are refuting the Sola Scriptra thing.

Just because someone explains something doesnt mean that they are the source.
Click to expand...
Indeed. And this is very Catholic of you to say. For, to be sure, we do not say that this “someone” who does the explication is the “source”.

Jesus is the source.

And again, it does seem that even if you claim to reject the Catholic teaching on Sacred Tradition, you have in your posts offered great apologia for Sacred Tradition.

One has to wonder how you can claim that the Ethiopian Eunuch was instructed by Phillip–without the benefit of the New Testament, yet still claim to support Sola Scriptura.
 
PRmerger said:
Indeed. And this is very Catholic of you to say. For, to be sure, we do not say that this “someone” who does the explication is the “source”.

Jesus is the source.

And again, it does seem that even if you claim to reject the Catholic teaching on Sacred Tradition, you have in your posts offered great apologia for Sacred Tradition.

One has to wonder how you can claim that the Ethiopian Eunuch was instructed by Phillip–without the benefit of the New Testament, yet still claim to support Sola Scriptura.
Click to expand...
You make a lot of assumptions.🙂

Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with eliminating expositors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top