Does scripture interpret scripture?

[JonNC]

Hmmm…can you point where that authority is?

As I can recall, the Oneness pentecostals say other protestants are wrong on the Trinity…and cite Scripture too to prove their point.

So which one is the Orthodox protestant thought on this one? Who will decide one way or the other? Who or where is that authority that will tell them so, and will believe and submit that they are wrong with their view of the Trinity?

Greetings, my friend.

If someone or group denies the Trinity, then they are by definition not Christian, and therefore not protestant either.

That said, they are welcome to believe anything they wish, assuming the authority set up in their tradition permits it. There tradition, however, has no say over what Lutherans believe anymore than than they do what Catholics believe.
Certainly, the Church has the role as interpretor, and hermeunetics is the Church’s place. That doesn’t exclude the fact that one must look broadly at scripture, and not at isolated verses. I needled Linc about the real presence because scripture is clear, in Christ’s words, and Paul’s, that is means is.

Jon

 

[stewstew03]

Greetings, my friend.

If someone or group denies the Trinity, then they are by definition not Christian, and therefore not protestant either.

By what authority do you decide who is included/excluded from the Christian community?

Getting back to the OP, scripture does not actually tell us how to interpret scripture. Therefore, it’s perfectly reasonable for JWs to read the Bible and decide that “one God in three persons” is not found in scripture because it isn’t explicit. After all, the Bible alone is normative in matters of faith, right?

Through the sola scriptura lens, which Protestant sect can decide with any real authority who belongs to the Christian community, and who should be excluded?

 

[Patavium]

Hi Pablope, I see our discussion of authrotiy has arrived here too!
Lincs

Of course, when you doubted that the RCC is an appropriate interpreter, and then you say the Orthodox Protestant thought (or Calvin as you say) is the appropriate. We have to ask about authority within the Protestant Churches. The RCC is united. The Protestant Churches are not.

Ask yourself during the Early Church was there authority? or was every Church preaching their own version of Jesus Christ?.

Also, if the authority is scripture for Protestant Churches, Where is Calvin in the Bible?. Don’t you prefer to trust the Church (RCC) entrusted to Pope Linus, which is mentioned in the bible as a fellow brethren?

[BIBLEDRB]2 Timothy 4:21[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[JonNC]

=stewstew03;9322694]By what authority do you decide who is included/excluded from the Christian community?

It isn’t a matter of authority, but of definition.

Getting back to the OP, **scripture does not actually tell us how to interpret scripture. ** Therefore, it’s perfectly reasonable for JWs to read the Bible and decide that “one God in three persons” is not found in scripture because it isn’t explicit. After all, the Bible alone is normative in matters of faith, right?

Thank you for saying this. You are exactly right! Whether one’s communion depends on scripture and Tradition as co-equal in hermeunetics, or practices sola scriptura.

Oh, but the Trinity is quite explicit, not in a single verse, mind you, but it is there.

Through the sola scriptura lens, which Protestant sect can decide with any real authority who belongs to the Christian community, and who should be excluded?

Again, definition.

Jon

EDIT: Let me just add, through the SS lens, that the three creeds are quite clear about the Trinity. And the three creeds are perfectly acceptable reflections of the faith from a sola scriptura perspective.

 

[stewstew03]

It isn’t a matter of authority, but of definition.

Who decides which definition is true?

EDIT: Let me just add, through the SS lens, that the three creeds are quite clear about the Trinity. And the three creeds are perfectly acceptable reflections of the faith from a sola scriptura perspective.

But the creeds are extra-biblical and fallible, no? Therefore, the creeds cannot help us decide who is a Christian and who is not. As such, the JWs may consider themselves Protestant Christians.

 

[JonNC]

Who decides which definition is true?

But the creeds are extra-biblical and fallible, no? Therefore, the creeds cannot help us decide who is a Christian and who is not. As such, the JWs may consider themselves Protestant Christians.

The creeds rightly reflect scripture, so, yes they can and do. But moreso, the creeds are the teaching of the undivided Church, and authoritative. Simply because something is “extra-biblical” doesn’t mean they are wrong. The early councils and creeds set out the understanding of the whole Church on topics such as the Trinity.

Jon

 

[stewstew03]

The creeds rightly reflect scripture, so, yes they can and do. But moreso, the creeds are the teaching of the undivided Church, and authoritative. Simply because something is “extra-biblical” doesn’t mean they are wrong. The early councils and creeds set out the understanding of the whole Church on topics such as the Trinity.

Jon

I agree with you, Jon, but now we have a problem; namely, we’re unable to show that JWs are not Christians using scripture as the sole rule and norm.

 

[JonNC]

I agree with you, Jon, but now we have a problem; namely, we’re unable to show that JWs are not Christians using scripture as the sole rule and norm.

Sole rule and norm to do what, Stew? Namely, to hold accountable teachers and teachings, doctrine and dogma. The councils and creeds, as right reflection of scripture, show that JW’s reject what is a key tenant of the catholic faith: Trinity.

Jon

 

[stewstew03]

Sole rule and norm to do what, Stew? Namely, to hold accountable teachers and teachings, doctrine and dogma. The councils and creeds, as right reflection of scripture, show that JW’s reject what is a key tenant of the catholic faith: Trinity.

Jon

Let’s try it another way…

What/where is the inerrant and infallible authority for the idea that God is One in Three Persons?

(Reminder: creeds are fallible.)

 

[PRmerger]

By what authority do you decide who is included/excluded from the Christian community?

It isn’t a matter of authority, but of definition.

Who decides which definition is true?

Exactly my question.

A Christian who accepts the Creeds but rejects the authority of the Church still claims to be a Christian.

Similarly, a Christian who accepts the Scriptures but rejects the Creeds may still claim to be a Christian.

Who says that he is not? Who determined that to be a Christian one must be Trinitarian?

(Answer: the Catholic Church)

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Before giving an utterly direct answer, I must first take note of the basis on which it stands; your claim to a universally accepted canon prior to the reformation, something which cannot be demonstrated historically. The East and West have differing canons, even Catholics at the time of the reformation had differing opinions on canon to the modern CC; to quote Cardinal Cajetan, displaying a pre Trent wholly acceptable opinion of canon -

As such I don’t think the reforms are guided into a change that no one else adhered too, they stand with many noted Catholic scholars of their day.

I don’t think we can pick and choose to fit our ideology Lincs. I even have a problem with the RCC Canon because it doesn’t have all the books that Jesus and the Apostles used (The Septuagint). But I am just a man and while I am entitled to my opinion I am bound to Him and His Church.

The West made a decision with all their Bishops and the East made a decision with all their Bishops. They are both under Apostolic authority and succession.

Now if Luther included the RCC Canon in his German translation and the original KJV also included it, who and why a different Canon was decided. Protestant translations claim that the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God.

I am compelled to press the issue brother,

How did the Holy Spirit help the Protestant Canon?

Why did the East and the West have the wrong Canon?

How did the Church founded by Jesus use the wrong Canon for over 1000 years?

I would refer to Institutes, book 4th, chapters 11 & 12 for a detailed explanation of it, as it encompasses a lot - m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xii.html
It covers church disciplne for me, the power to proclaim ones sins forgiven upon repentance, and not forgiven to the unrepentant… But please see the link for a more ‘authoritiative’ view on it than my own

Lincs, I have to say that while I didn’t meet Calvin, you seem to be a far better person and probably much more pleasant to talk to .

So Calvin had more Grace in interpreting how the binding and loosing applies than what all the Bishops of the Church agree and practice?

I have to ask again,

How did the Church get it wrong for so many years?

I hear so many Protestants criticize the RCC and the Pope and how it is all controlled by just one man. Do you know that the Church meets with their Cardinals and Bishops? That most decisions are made by a group of men (A really big group) and not just one man?

And here we have one man explaining his opinions (which I have no problem with) but while expressing his opinions, he dares say that all other opinions are wrong!? Under what authority can he establish this alone?

Can anyone grab a Bible and claim authority under God and the Apostles teachings and say that they now have the authority to bind and loose on earth?

Sorry for the late reply but I will be testing on a work certification this Wednesday, and speaking of which I need to study more .

May His Peace be with you,

Jose

 

[guanophore]

Hi James,

I get where you are coming from, but if the church which claims infallibility contradicts scripture, rather plain scripture in many places, is it as such? I guess I’m trying not to carry on the rather long authority discussion here… Rather trying to get some discussion going which allows us to open scripture.

Lincs

Absolutely, yes. However, since Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture both come from the same Source (the HS) it is impossible for them to contradict. If it appears that they do, then the reader does not understand one, the other, or both.

The Scriptures must be understood in context. The context of the NT is the Catholic Church. Catholics were inspired to write, copy, share, protect and eventually canonize the NT. Therefore, there is nothing in the NT that contradicts Catholic faith.

 

[guanophore]

For Johns benefit:

I stated for example, The Trinity, is considered orthodox Protestsnt thought. If one departs from this, one is not an orthodox Protestsnt. The authority which says they are wrong who denies as much are the scriptures.

I think they call themselves historically confessional, meaning they espouse the original confessions that were historically founding their beliefs.

 

[guanophore]

Oh, but the Trinity is quite explicit, not in a single verse, mind you, but it is there.

Well, it seems quite explicit to us, because we read it through the lens of that element of Sacred Tradition that we espouse. For those that don’t, it is not explicit at all. The Gnostics, Arians, and their modern expression the Mormons do not see it.

 

[po18guy]

If scripture interprets scripture, then it is schizophrenic, telling each denomination something different. There is only one correct interpretation, and that is arrived at solely via the authority that Christ gave to His Church. All else is ego, as evidenced by thousands of disagreeing denominations.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I think that we also need the Church Fathers, Tradition and the Magesterium. My friend thinks that all we need is the bible. So to what extent does scripture interpret scripture or does it?

I listen to Michael Voris and I thought that in one of his talks, and I can’t remember which one, he said that scripture does not interpret scripture. I hope that I am not miss-speaking here but I thought that is what he said.

Thanks
Phyllo

That scripture interprets scripture is a valid principle. It means that we must take into account every verse that bears upon a particular subject when interpreting the bible. It also means that scripture must be read in the proper sequence, since understanding scripture’s teaching depends upon understanding scripture’s prior teaching. Teaching builds upon teaching, progressive revelation. You must understand prior revelation to understand new revelation. You mustn’t read the bible backwards, as I put it.

An example of reading rhe bible backwards is done by Jehovah’s Witnesses. They read where Paul says to the Corinthians that Jesus was raised in the spirt, and take that to mean ‘as a spirit,’ He wasn’t raised physically but only as a spirit creature. Then they have to go back and explain away the gospel verses that make it clear He was raised bodily.

Other groups read the bible backwards too. They start out by concentrating on the writings of Paul instead of understanding the gospel and the teachings of Jesus. The early Christians already had learned the apostolic tradition and Jesus, so they had the right background to not misunderstand Paul. Paul is easy to misunderstand, so that is why Peter wrote that, “the unlearned and unstable twist the letters of our beloved brother Paul to their own destruction, as they do with the rest of the scriptures.”

Unlearned in what? The apostolic tradition. That is why tradition is so important and cannot be ignored.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I think that we also need the Church Fathers, Tradition and the Magesterium. My friend thinks that all we need is the bible.

Thanks
Phyllo

A Jehovah’s Witness friend said that she viewed the bible as a giant jigsaw puzzle, with the verses being pieces of the puzzle.

Well all right, to continue with this comparison, as we know, a jigsaw puzzle comes in a box, and on the outside of a box is a picture to use as a guide to how the completed puzzle should look. This picture on the outside of the box is Tradition. But some people (we know who they are) throw the box away, they throw Tradition away. Hence they have no idea of what the puzzle should look like, and they put it together in a way that pleases their own personal predelictions. That is why there are so many different scriptural interpretations, and so many different denominations.

That makes the church Fathers, Tradition, and Magisterium so important. The Fathers and Tradition are the guide for how scripture is to be read, and the Magisterium is guarded by the Holy Spirit to prevent false interpretations.

 

[JustaServant]

A Jehovah’s Witness friend said that she viewed the bible as a giant jigsaw puzzle, with the verses being pieces of the puzzle.

Well all right, to continue with this comparison, as we know, a jigsaw puzzle comes in a box, and on the outside of a box is a picture to use as a guide to how the completed puzzle should look. This picture on the outside of the box is Tradition. But some people (we know who they are) throw the box away, they throw Tradition away. Hence they have no idea of what the puzzle should look like, and they put it together in a way that pleases their own personal predelictions. That is why there are so many different scriptural interpretations, and so many different denominations.

That makes the church Fathers, Tradition, and Magisterium so important. The Fathers and Tradition are the guide for how scripture is to be read, and the Magisterium is guarded by the Holy Spirit to prevent false interpretations.

That is an excellant illustration.

 

[JaKael02]

If scripture interprets scripture, then it is schizophrenic, telling each denomination something different. There is only one correct interpretation, and that is arrived at solely via the authority that Christ gave to His Church. All else is ego, as evidenced by thousands of disagreeing denominations.

Scripture has the ability to be known through gifts of the Holy Spirits (Wisdom, Understanding, Council, Knowledge, Fortitude, Piety, Chasity)

Westminster confession:7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
(p) 2 Pet 3:16
(q) Ps 119:105,130; Deut 29:29; Deut 30:10-14; Acts 17:11

Scripture has the ability to reveal essential truths without reading an authoritative interpretation.

God Bless,

James

 

[Nicea325]

A Jehovah’s Witness friend said that she viewed the bible as a giant jigsaw puzzle, with the verses being pieces of the puzzle.

Well all right, to continue with this comparison, as we know, a jigsaw puzzle comes in a box, and on the outside of a box is a picture to use as a guide to how the completed puzzle should look. This picture on the outside of the box is Tradition. But some people (we know who they are) throw the box away, they throw Tradition away. Hence they have no idea of what the puzzle should look like, and they put it together in a way that pleases their own personal predelictions. That is why there are so many different scriptural interpretations, and so many different denominations.

That makes the church Fathers, Tradition, and Magisterium so important. The Fathers and Tradition are the guide for how scripture is to be read, and the Magisterium is guarded by the Holy Spirit to prevent false interpretations.

Very true. It would be like if the founding fathers of the U.S. simply handed out copies the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution and decided every citizen should have a copy and let them figure it out. How far would this country or any country get without guidance?