Does scripture interpret scripture?

[GaryTaylor]

The Apostles did teach imputed (reckoned) righteousness:

The difference between what the Apostles taught, and the Reformers, is that the Apostles taught that, when Jesus makes a deposit in the account, there is actually a BALANCE there. For the Reformers, the convert is not actually MADE righteous, but only “declared” righteous. God has somehow doctored the books, hiding from Himself the credit and debit columns, so that a credit that does not really exist is set against the debt.

Imputed and reckoned are the same word in Greek (logizomai) no?

The Apostles believe Baptism is a supernatural infused virtue of Grace by God which is really there.

The Reformers believe, well for example “Westminster Confession” states… “Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.”

So, IMO I see one issue here. Which I believe we are in agreement with. The next I see is with Augustine, which we touched on somewhere. Which I understand you aware of. For those reading though.

google.com/url?q=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm&sa=U&ei=C_PFT6e0H4rN6QHkxY3GBg&ved=0CBcQFjAC&sig2=rmzQ-ulGnj6ELfuHusn_LA&usg=AFQjCNGCrtBtkUmDk7LGtQZ92edTXGD-fg

Peace

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi all,

I managed to find this essay - bible-researcher.com/packer1.html - by J I Packer on the interpretation of scripture, touching directly upon our topic in section B. It lays out what has been demonstrated by several posts in the thread; namely that using clear passages of scripture, we can harmonise them with others that may appear less clear. But do read it, it’s lays out what is meant by “scripture interprets scripture” in a very clear manner.

Lincs

 

[GaryTaylor]

We draw the distinction between Justification, as right standing before God, based solely on the merits of Jesus Christ. And sanctification, whereby one is gradually conformed to the image of Christ more and more day by day. They are separate in my theology, but the latter will always follow the former

Heres a Reformed link…

google.com/url?q=http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/02/calvin_on_justification_by_fai_1.php&sa=U&ei=xfHFT8mGOcqJ6AHTgs3VBg&ved=0CB0QFjAC&sig2=3Z7dUNofQufkn6y34tj4Zg&usg=AFQjCNF3alrFUk3dx812m4p7C7BTDwLb0A

Course this is Calvin in response to the Catholic Church. Where does the your “Reformed Congregational Theology” differ from Calvin here? Or does it?

Also what is the reformed thinking of yours in response to the above post?

We aleady spoke about “works” Linc, I see no sense if drudging through that again, yet I do believe the Augustine comments in the New Advent link are relevant, and also to what I mentioned is viewing Augustine in a complete sense and then in according to what he believed in which was the Primacy.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hi all,

I managed to find this essay - bible-researcher.com/packer1.html - by J I Packer on the interpretation of scripture, touching directly upon our topic in section B. It lays out what has been demonstrated by several posts in the thread; namely that using clear passages of scripture, we can harmonise them with others that may appear less clear. But do read it, it’s lays out what is meant by “scripture interprets scripture” in a very clear manner.

Lincs

I’m sorry I crossed posts with you. Good Morning!! Let me check it out.

Peace

 

[Lincoln7]

Heres a Reformed link…

google.com/url?q=http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/02/calvin_on_justification_by_fai_1.php&sa=U&ei=xfHFT8mGOcqJ6AHTgs3VBg&ved=0CB0QFjAC&sig2=3Z7dUNofQufkn6y34tj4Zg&usg=AFQjCNF3alrFUk3dx812m4p7C7BTDwLb0A

Course this is Calvin in response to the Catholic Church. Where does the your “Reformed Congregational Theology” differ from Calvin here? Or does it?

Also what is the reformed thinking of yours in response to the above post?

We aleady spoke about “works” Linc, I see no sense if drudging through that again, yet I do believe the Augustine comments in the New Advent link are relevant, and also to what I mentioned is viewing Augustine in a complete sense and then in according to what he believed in which was the Primacy.

Peace

Hi Gary,

I fear we will go off topic if we go into this. Can I PM you my thoughts at all? Or if you want begin a thread on any of the above… ?

Lincs

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hi Gary,

I fear we will go off topic if we go into this. Can I PM you my thoughts at all? Or if you want begin a thread on any of the above… ?

Lincs

Of course you can PM me.

 

[GaryTaylor]

This is the point by James I. Packer where again I see the same issue?

Interpreting Scripture by Scripture

"The second basic principle of interpretation is that Scripture must interpret Scripture; the scope and significance of one passage is to be brought out by relating it to others. Our Lord gave an example of this when he used Gn. ii.24 to show that Moses’ law of divorce was no more than a temporary concession to human hard-heartedness. (4) The Reformers termed this principle the analogy of Scripture; the Westminster Confession states it thus: “The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture, it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”

Course then he touchs down here…

“In Romans, Paul brings together and sets out in systematic relation all the great themes of the Bible—sin, law, judgment, faith, works, grace, justification, sanctification, election, the plan of salvation, the work of Christ, the work of the Spirit, the Christian hope, the nature and life of the Church etc.”

How does this stand in light of this…

“The ideas on which the Reformers built their system of justification, except perhaps fiduciary faith, were by no means really original. They had been conceived long before either by heretics of the earlier centuries or by isolated Catholic theologians and had been quietly scattered as the seed of future heresies. It was especially the representatives of Antinomianism during the Apostolic times who welcomed the idea that faith alone suffices for justification, and that consequently the observance of the moral law is not necessary either as a prerequisite for obtaining justification or as a means for preserving it. For this reason St. Augustine (De fide et operibus, xiv) was of the opinion that the Apostles James, Peter, John, and Jude had directed their Epistles against the Antinomians of that time, who claimed to have taken their doctrines — so dangerous to morality — from the writings of St. Paul. Until quite recently, it was almost universally accepted that the epistle of St. James was written against the unwarranted conclusions drawn from the writings of St. Paul. Of late, however, Catholic exegetes have become more and more convinced that the Epistle in question, so remarkable for its insisting on the necessity of good works, neither aimed at correcting the false interpretations of St. Paul’s doctrine, nor had any relation to the teaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles. On the contrary, they believe that St. James had no other object than to emphasize the fact — already emphasized by St. Paul — that only such faith as is active in charity and good works (fides formata) possesses any power to justify man (cf. Galatians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 13:2), whilst faith devoid of charity and good works (fides informis) is a dead faith and in the eyes of God insufficient for justification (cf. James 2:17 sqq.). According to this apparently correct opinion, the Epistles of both Apostles treat of different subjects, neither with direct relation to the other. For St. James insists on the necessity of works of Christian charity, while St. Paul intends to show that neither the observance of the Jewish Law nor the merely natural good works of the pagans are of any value for obtaining the grace of justification.” [New Advent]

Doesn’t this negate what he states in in his first paragraph?

Peace

 

[Lincoln7]

Again Gary, we veer on going off topic in this thread on this and maing it a justification discussion.

Apologies

Lincs

 

[stewstew03]

Hi all,

I managed to find this essay - bible-researcher.com/packer1.html - by J I Packer on the interpretation of scripture, touching directly upon our topic in section B. It lays out what has been demonstrated by several posts in the thread; namely that using clear passages of scripture, we can harmonise them with others that may appear less clear. But do read it, it’s lays out what is meant by “scripture interprets scripture” in a very clear manner.

Lincs

When Dr. Packer states that the “Mediævals tended to equate Church tradition with the Word of God” - does he mean Christians during the first 1600 years?

 

[Lincoln7]

When Dr. Packer states that the “Mediævals tended to equate Church tradition with the Word of God” - does he mean Christians during the first 1600 years?

In its context, Dr Packer is confronting ways in which scripture has been treated wrongly, in this case he is demonstrating his view of tradition as subordinate to the written word of God, and medieval tendencies to view certain Traditons as on par with scripture. Saying he means this to apply to the first 1600 years of Christian history however I would take issue with, as the relationship between scripture and tradition in the early centuries is often different to what is held now in the modern CC. Hence his comments this is a more medieval issue.

Lincs

 

[pablope]

Pablope, good to talk again,

Hi, Lincs…

I don’t believe Calvins teachings to be without error. Calvins teachings are subservient to the Word of God, as indeed are all confessions I use, they are submitted to it.

 

[PRmerger]

Then how can you tell that what you are believing from Calvin…which one is error free and which one is not?

Indeed.

One ought to always keep in mind, given our corrupted human reasoning, that Calvin is most definitely GOING TO BE WRONG in his interpretations.

That’s a formidable thought, isn’t it? That we KNOW for a fact that in all of his writings there’s going to be error.

Of that we are assured, right?

And that thought would be enough to give me pause about all of his writings. How is it that we know when he’s wrong and he’s right?

What is the canon, or the measuring stick, we use to discern where his interpretations are correct and where they are fatally flawed?

Catholics, of course, have the answer: where he divorces himself from that which the Church has proclaimed, he is wrong. That is our measuring stick.

What is the Calvinists’ measuring stick? One cannot say Scripture because one cannot use a measuring stick to measure a measuring stick.

 

[JaKael02]

In its context, Dr Packer is confronting ways in which scripture has been treated wrongly, in this case he is demonstrating his view of tradition as subordinate to the written word of God, and medieval tendencies to view certain Traditons as on par with scripture. Saying he means this to apply to the first 1600 years of Christian history however I would take issue with, as the relationship between scripture and tradition in the early centuries is often different to what is held now in the modern CC. Hence his comments this is a more medieval issue.

Lincs

Lincs -

Have you done a thread yet on Church history? If not, interested in doing so in the future?

Thank you,

James

 

[JonNC]

Then we agree - Sola Scriptura is not found in scripture; only creeds.

I haven’t claimed that sola scriptura is found explicitly in scripture, and since, it is not a doctrine. That’s not to say that sola scriptura isn’t usable, or appropriate for the Church to use.
On the topic of the thread, Lutheranism actively looks at the entirety of scripture. How do we interpret James, for example? By also looking at Paul. When we say one is justified by grace alone through faith alone, we see this throughout Paul’s writings. We also see that James says that faith without works is dead, and he is right. Therefore, while one is justified by faith, and not by works, it must be a faith that works through love (again back to Paul.
I don’t particularly care for the phrase, scripture interprets scripture, because there is much more to it than the phrase allows. The phrase sounds like an exclusion of the teach position of the Church. But the actuality is that it doesn’t. In terms of doctrine, it is the Church that interprets, using the entirety of scripture.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

originally posted by Guanophore;
Oh would that the Pope had listened and responded with humility and obedience to the Gospel! Alas, I think he was so thick in the abuses, and so full of hubris, he believe he could swat Luther like an annoying fly, as had been done so many times before with the same complainers.

I wonder how things might have been different, had we holy popes such as we have had in the last century.

I would say, Luther was not patient enough, did not put his total trust in God’s time and will. Quite a departure from Catherine of Sienna.

 

[stewstew03]

I haven’t claimed that sola scriptura is found explicitly in scripture, and since, it is not a doctrine. That’s not to say that sola scriptura isn’t usable, or appropriate for the Church to use.
On the topic of the thread, Lutheranism actively looks at the entirety of scripture. How do we interpret James, for example? By also looking at Paul. When we say one is justified by grace alone through faith alone, we see this throughout Paul’s writings. We also see that James says that faith without works is dead, and he is right. Therefore, while one is justified by faith, and not by works, it must be a faith that works through love (again back to Paul.
I don’t particularly care for the phrase, scripture interprets scripture, because there is much more to it than the phrase allows. The phrase sounds like an exclusion of the teach position of the Church. But the actuality is that it doesn’t. In terms of doctrine, it is the Church that interprets, using the entirety of scripture.

Jon

Jon, I appreciate the dialogue. I think you and are closer on this issue than the “sola scriptura” framework allows.

If sola scriptura means scripture is harmonized, and not set against itself, then I don’t think any Catholic here would have a problem with that (I know I don’t).

 

[stewstew03]

In its context, Dr Packer is confronting ways in which scripture has been treated wrongly, in this case he is demonstrating his view of tradition as subordinate to the written word of God, and medieval tendencies to view certain Traditons as on par with scripture. Saying he means this to apply to the first 1600 years of Christian history however I would take issue with, as the relationship between scripture and tradition in the early centuries is often different to what is held now in the modern CC. Hence his comments this is a more medieval issue.

Lincs

I made a tongue-in-cheek comment, but I think you received my point, which is that sola scriptura did not exist in the first 1600 years of Christianity.

 

[JonNC]

=stewstew03;9353864]Jon, I appreciate the dialogue. I think you and are closer on this issue than the “sola scriptura” framework allows.

I appreciate the dialogue, too, Stew. Thank you for listening to me with an open mind, not in the sense that I expect or even want to change your mind about your Catholic faith, but in the sense that you are willing to hear a different, and I believe orthodox, understanding of SS.

If sola scriptura means scripture is harmonized, and not set against itself, then I don’t think any Catholic here would have a problem with that (I know I don’t).

I heard once, and I have no evidence or quote to back it up, that Melanchthon once implied that if one intends to use a verse of scripture to believe something, first seek 3 verses that contradict what you thik it means, or something to that effect. So yes, scripture is not set against itself, and we need the Church to help teach us the faith.

Jon

 

[pablope]

pablope;9352702:

originally posted by Guanophore;
Oh would that the Pope had listened and responded with humility and obedience to the Gospel! Alas, I think he was so thick in the abuses, and so full of hubris, he believe he could swat Luther like an annoying fly, as had been done so many times before with the same complainers.

Perhaps some truth here both.

Jon

Hi…Jon…

Agree. Catherine’s request for the Pope to return to Rome were ignored initially…but through prayers, the Pope finally listened and returned.

How things could have changed had Luther resorted to prayers.

[/QUOTE]

 

[JonNC]

Hi…Jon…

Agree. Catherine’s request for the Pope to return to Rome were ignored initially…but through prayers, the Pope finally listened and returned.

How things could have changed had Luther resorted to prayers.

Are you sure he didn’t? In Sept. 1520, he wrote to Pope Leo, saying in part,

AMONG those monstrous evils of this age with which I have now for three years been waging war, I am sometimes compelled to look to you and to call you to mind, most blessed father Leo. In truth, since you alone are everywhere considered as being the cause of my engaging in war, I cannot at any time fail to remember you; and although I have been compelled by the causeless raging of your impious flatterers against me to appeal from your seat to a future council—fearless of the futile decrees of your predecessors Pius and Julius, who in their foolish tyranny prohibited such an action—yet I have never been so alienated in feeling from your Blessedness as not to have sought with all my might, in diligent prayer and crying to God, all the best gifts for you and for your see. But those who have hitherto endeavoured to terrify me with the majesty of your name and authority, I have begun quite to despise and triumph over. One thing I see remaining which I cannot despise, and this has been the reason of my writing anew to your Blessedness: namely, that I find that blame is cast on me, and that it is imputed to me as a great offence, that in my rashness I am judged to have spared not even your person.

Alas, perhaps he prayed not enough, and Leo responded not enough.

Jon