Does scripture interpret scripture?

[Phyllo]

I don’t really want to derail the thread into a tradition discussion, I’m in another thread on tht right now, feel free to pitch in over there, it’s the authrotiy one in this same forum.

Kind regards, Phyllo

Lincs.

I’ll take a look. thanks

 

[Lincoln7]

Scripture does not intpret itself apart from the authority of the Church.

May Jehovah’s Witnesses and Evangelicals will use the idea that scripture intepretes scripture to push some wild ideas, including the idea that scripture in-and-of itself is its own authority. They will turn to the Old Testament and point something out and then turn to the New Testament and point out something which seems to agree and say, “See, scripture inerprets itself” as a way to teach us that we don’t need an final authority, or that there is not authority other than scripture itself.

it is a very dangerous idea unless the authority of the Church is there as a guard rail.

-Tim-

We do say that the very words of God in written form do carry authority…we don’t object to other authorities, we object to authority that functions above the word of God. The great theologians of all ages have practiced exegesis of scripture. For this all inspired scripture teaches more plainly and with more authority.

See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)

Indeed, we are well aware of said verse, but in our exegesis we reach a differing conclusion. I’ve given my opinion on what James means by faith in an above post. I will post a link to Calvins commentaries on James here: m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45.vi.iii.vii.html
And his institutes chapter on justification, which deals with this, here: m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.xii.html
Has this verse been infallibly defined?

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[TimothyH]

That is exactly what my JW friend does. She flips from the OT to the NT to make a point.
I guess by church authority you mean the Magisterium?

So we get the true interpretation from scriptures, Church Fathers, and the Magesterium? At least that is what I believe.

Yes, the teaching office of the Church - the Magesterium. But not only that. There is the constant witness of the entire history of the Church, things which might not be proclaimed as dogma but which have produced enough holiness that their authenticity cannot be denied. The rosary is one example.

JW’s are very good at Bible flipping to prove their points. They are highly trained how to do it, and some even have different techniques and verses to use on different types of Christians. Be very wary of their Bible flipping and “Scripture interprets itself” techniques.

There is such a thing as correct exegisis based on the entirety of scripture but it is extremely dangerous to pull two verses out of the Bible from works written to completely different audiences who lived under a completely different set of circumstances and start drawing conclusions on matters of supreme importance such as how to get to heaven or whether Jesus Christ was is God. It is very dangerous.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

We do say that the very words of God in written form do carry authority…we don’t object to other authorities, we object to authority that functions above the word of God. The great theologians of all ages have practiced exegesis of scripture. For this all inspired scripture teaches more plainly and with more authority.

Indeed, we are well aware of said verse, but in our exegesis we reach a differing conclusion. I’ve given my opinion on what James means by faith in an above post. Has this verse been infallibly defined?

Kind regards

Lincs.

The written word of God does carry authority. You are absolutely correct. We agree.

Where we disagree is that Catholics believe that the Church has been granted a special gift of the Holy Spirit so that when she teaches on matters of faith and morals she cannot error. The Church therefor is the infallible intepreter of God’s written word.

As the infallible intepreter of God’s written word, the Church believes that any intpretation which comes to the conclusion that all we require is faith in Jesus to be justified is an incorrect intpreatation. That is where we differ.

I am aware of Calvins’ arguments and I don’t care to debate them. Maybe someone else will care to. Not me, not right now.

The Catholic Church rarely, if ever, attempts to infalliby define single verses of scripture, nor does the Church limit interpretation to only one meaning. God speaks to each of us personally through scripture, but for Catholics, the Church’s continuous and unchaning teaching is a framework which, to the extent that we understand and adhere to it, keeps us free from incorrect intpretation.

-Tim-

 

[Phyllo]

Yes, the teaching office of the Church - the Magesterium. But not only that. There is the constant witness of the entire history of the Church, things which might not be proclaimed as dogma but which have produced enough holiness that their authenticity cannot be denied. The rosary is one example.

JW’s are very good at Bible flipping to prove their points. They are highly trained how to do it, and some even have different techniques and verses to use on different types of Christians. Be very wary of their Bible flipping and “Scripture interprets itself” techniques.

There is such a thing as correct exegisis based on the entirety of scripture but it is extremely dangerous to pull two verses out of the Bible from works written to completely different audiences who lived under a completely different set of circumstances and start drawing conclusions on matters of supreme importance such as how to get to heaven or whether Jesus Christ was is God. It is very dangerous.

-Tim-

Hey Tim,

I know it is dangerous. But I am grounded in my faith even if I can’t express myself smoothly and knowledgeably . I know what I believe in my heart and now as Michael Voris says I need to know Church History and my faith so I can explain what and why I believe it.
I have learned a lot from my JW friend and these forums.

And thanks to every one who responded.

 

[Nicea325]

First, my friend, thank you for your kind remarks on another thread. I am blessed by our conversations, and your perspective.

I absolutely agree with your statement that Christ expects more than a simple belief. We’re told that even the demons have that. Faith must be an active thing, to paraphrase Luther, trusting in His grace that what we do by faith is pleasing to Him, despite our sin.
The faith we must have, if it is a saving faith, is a faith that works through love. We must love our fellow man, as this is what he calls us to do. How long can saving faith remain if we persist in not doing what He asks us to do?

Jon

You are very welcome my friend! I agree with your above statement too!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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

While some verses might be easier to understand than others.

Overall:

NO, Scripture does not interpret Scripture, or better yet: we are not able to interpret Scriptures by ourselves Alone (Pun intended ). A book does not interpret itself.

How many times did Jesus hit the Pharisees and Sadducees, etc over the head with Scriptures because they did not understand some Scripture passages correctly? Even more, the Devil dared to quote Scriptures when tempting Him in the dessert, and again, Jesus corrected him with Scriptures.

At first, it might seem that Scriptures can interpret itself. However, we are overlooking THE most important fact… Jesus was the one to interpret it. We see the example of the Eunuch; didn’t the HS take Phillip to him? Also, we don’t see anywhere in the Bible the Apostles receiving Bibles from Jesus. They were taught what Scriptures were truly about first.

If history has taught us anything is that, unless you interpret the Bible through Apostolic Tradition, you will have a mountain of misunderstanding running amok. Ironically enough, both Luther and Calvin were completely aware of that and did everything they could to avoid everyone interpreting Scriptures by themselves. As much as modern Protestantism likes to quote them both, NONE of them would agree with the protestant mess we have today. In fact, it is not about protesting anymore, it is all about a personal relationship with the Bible and believing that the Holy Spirit is guiding me to my own personal interpretation of Scriptures and completely ignorant of the fact of its history and responsibility!

Don’t take me wrong, I absolutely love the Bible. But I must love Truth as well, I can’t bend truth to fit my interpretation and expect to have a correct understanding of Scriptures.

Rant’s over…

I’d like to echo David’s post earlier: TGIF!!!

 

[Tony_the_mad]

One searches and consults all of scripture to reach a conclusion, it’s exegesis. One verse will confirm something found in another.

Romans 3:28: “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”
Galatians 2:16 “yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.”

Both clearly support one another, justification by faith, not works. And so on and so forth.

Kind regards

Lincs.

It is not the confirmations that are most revealing; it is the contradictions and seeming contradictions that tell us most about scriptures.

I had a friend whom I would often quote ‘great men think alike’ and his response was ‘fools seldom differ’. I am not saying that the scripture is foolish, far from it; even when it appears foolish, ‘God’s folly is greater than human wisdom’. Your method of only finding passages that agree is trying to force God’s folly to conform to our human wisdom.

Take the matter of salvation, the quotes you mention support salvation (or at least justification, whatever that truly means).

1. Paul states fairly clearly that we are saved entirely by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2. Paul also states that If I have the faith to move mountains but have not love then I am nothing.
3. Jesus states ‘that unless you eat my body and drink my blood you shall not have life within you.’
4. Jesus says that we shall be judged by ‘what ever we do to the least of his brothers’.
5. Jesus states that ‘not all who say Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven but only the one who does the will of the Father.’

Further, none of these are isolated each are backed up by other quotations of scripture. We are called to believe each of these equally and to accept all of them even when they seem to contradict each other.

Returning to the main point asking if scripture can interpret itself. The answer is yes. The scripture continually interprets and corrects itself. Matthew, Luke, and to some extent John all correct Mark for instance. Peter 2 corrects Jude. James reinterprets Romans, etc. There are quite a few quotes from the Old Testament including many that are not perfect quotes. (The New Testament writers were not concerned with word for word quotation from scripture.)

For me, though Paul has the most revealing thought about scriptures when he says that all who receive and build on the foundation of the Gospel shall be saved but what they build will be tested as if by fire. To me, the interpretation is absolutely clear: all who follow Scriptures and build on it shall be saved, whether or not they build the meanest hut or the strongest most glorious fire proof mansion.

Too many people seem to think it is enough just to be saved. They build their tiny huts on one small section of this great foundation and think it is enough. (To be fair such attitudes are not limited to Protestants). They are like the rich man who asks what more he can do then just follow the commandments (ie scripture), but shakes his head when Jesus says give everything you have to the poor and follow me.

 

[Randal796]

1 Corinthians 13:8-12 KJV
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

I grew up in a Pentecostal family and spent time among many Southern Baptists. I never understand how these verses could be used to justify opposite opinions.
Pentecostals say these verses prove that things like tongues are still in use because that which is perfect has not yet come. SBs say that tongues stopped once the canon was finished and compiled. It’s the same passage used but they can’t agree.

 

[Lincoln7]

While some verses might be easier to understand than others.

Overall:

NO, Scripture does not interpret Scripture, or better yet: we are not able to interpret Scriptures by ourselves Alone (Pun intended ). A book does not interpret itself.

How many times did Jesus hit the Pharisees and Sadducees, etc over the head with Scriptures because they did not understand some Scripture passages correctly? Even more, the Devil dared to quote Scriptures when tempting Him in the dessert, and again, Jesus corrected him with Scriptures.

At first, it might seem that Scriptures can interpret itself. However, we are overlooking THE most important fact… Jesus was the one to interpret it. We see the example of the Eunuch; didn’t the HS take Phillip to him? Also, we don’t see anywhere in the Bible the Apostles receiving Bibles from Jesus. They were taught what Scriptures were truly about first.

If history has taught us anything is that, unless you interpret the Bible through Apostolic Tradition, you will have a mountain of misunderstanding running amok. Ironically enough, both Luther and Calvin were completely aware of that and did everything they could to avoid everyone interpreting Scriptures by themselves. As much as modern Protestantism likes to quote them both, NONE of them would agree with the protestant mess we have today. In fact, it is not about protesting anymore, it is all about a personal relationship with the Bible and believing that the Holy Spirit is guiding me to my own personal interpretation of Scriptures and completely ignorant of the fact of its history and responsibility!

Don’t take me wrong, I absolutely love the Bible. But I must love Truth as well, I can’t bend truth to fit my interpretation and expect to have a correct understanding of Scriptures.

Rant’s over…

I’d like to echo David’s post earlier: TGIF!!!

Hence why there are more confessional Protestants; planting themselves in a visible camp, with a clear picture presented of what they believe.

But the old “private interpretation” argument that abounds on CAF I always take a slight issue with… One has to use it to reach any conclusion, including the one regarding which infallible interpreter to choose to follow.

On a lot of modern Protestantisms lack of knowledge of history, indeed there is, but I’m sure there’s a lot of this in the Catholic world too…

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

1 Corinthians 13:8-12 KJV
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

I grew up in a Pentecostal family and spent time among many Southern Baptists. I never understand how these verses could be used to justify opposite opinions.
Pentecostals say these verses prove that things like tongues are still in use because that which is perfect has not yet come. SBs say that tongues stopped once the canon was finished and compiled. It’s the same passage used but they can’t agree.

Again though, if the verse has not been infallibly defined, then one still has to go along with private nterpretation, I’m sure there are multiple opinions on this in the catholic world.

As a side note, I would side with the non cessasionitsts; the “perfect” to me appears to be that referenced in verse 12: the face to face life with Jesus Christ. Hence Paul’s comment that all these gifts are partial, as if we look dimly through a glass, but then (the new heavens and new earth), we will have no need for these. But anyways, unrelated to the thread I suppose…

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[Lochias]

1 Corinthians 13:8-12 KJV
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

I grew up in a Pentecostal family and spent time among many Southern Baptists. I never understand how these verses could be used to justify opposite opinions.
Pentecostals say these verses prove that things like tongues are still in use because that which is perfect has not yet come. SBs say that tongues stopped once the canon was finished and compiled. It’s the same passage used but they can’t agree.

This, this, this. Without an Authority to interpret Scripture in the way it was meant to be interpreted, there is no true cohesion, no one right way of doing things. As others have said, a book cannot be self-interpreting. Further, we cannot take upon ourselves the Authority that Jesus set up elsewhere. He gave us a Church for this sort of thing.

People who disagree should ask themselves: Is Jesus the Good Sheppard, or not? Can one ignore 2000 years of Jesus’ promise to the Church staying true, or not?

 

[Lincoln7]

This, this, this. Without an Authority to interpret Scripture in the way it was meant to be interpreted, there is no true cohesion, no one right way of doing things. As others have said, a book cannot be self-interpreting. Further, we cannot take upon ourselves the Authority that Jesus set up elsewhere. He gave us a Church for this sort of thing.

People who disagree should ask themselves: Is Jesus the Good Sheppard, or not? Can one ignore 2000 years of Jesus’ promise to the Church staying true, or not?

Has the magisterium interpreted these verses infallibly?

Regards

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

Has the magisterium interpreted these verses infallibly?

Regards

Lincs.

Infallibly? No. But the Magisterium has given us the lens through which we are to understand these verses.

And, as I am certain you know, it is not a requirement that Catholics only believe that which the Church has declared infallibly.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hence why there are more confessional Protestants; planting themselves in a visible camp, with a clear picture presented of what they believe.

Pardon my ignorance brother Lincs, but:
What is a confessional Protestant?

But the old “private interpretation” argument that abounds on CAF I always take a slight issue with… One has to use it to reach any conclusion, including the one regarding which infallible interpreter to choose to follow.

Notice I said: Through Apostolic Tradition and not infallibly.

On a lot of modern Protestantisms lack of knowledge of history, indeed there is, but I’m sure there’s a lot of this in the Catholic world too…

What do you want to accomplish with this statement Lincs?

I have personally been to several Non-Catholic Churches to see the following belief of Christian History:

OT - Jesus - Apostles - NT - Early Church - Reformation

With the Early Church lasting for about 300-400 years, then jumping to the 1500’s as if there was no Christianity or Church for over 1000 years! While a Catholic might be ignorant of history (Which I did not say there weren’t), I have never seen one with the same concept of Christian Church history as explained above.

Kind regards

Lincs.

And to you as well,

Jose

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi PRmerger, good to speak again.

Infallibly? No. But the Magisterium has given us the lens through which we are to understand these verses.

Spiritual gifts or not? I’m assuming yes? As there is a charismatic Catholic conference near me annually.

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

Jose, thanks for the reply,

Pardon my ignorance brother Lincs, but:
What is a confessional Protestant?

I tend to use said term to describe a Protestant who adheres to a historic confession, e.g. 39 Articles, Westminster confession of faith, Heidelberg catechism, Formula of Concord…

Notice I said: Through Apostolic Tradition and not infallibly.

Quite so, forgive my misunderstanding Does one not have to use it in discerning Traditon as well? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t discount the tradition, far from it. Nor did the reformers, my copy of The Institutes for example, has countless patristic citations.

What do you want to accomplish with this statement Lincs?

I have personally been to several Non-Catholic Churches to see the following belief of Christian History:

OT - Jesus - Apostles - NT - Early Church - Reformation

With the Early Church lasting for about 300-400 years, then jumping to the 1500’s as if there was no Christianity or Church for over 1000 years! While a Catholic might be ignorant of history (Which I did not say there weren’t), I have never seen one with the same concept of Christian Church history as explained above.

Indeed I’m sure some do hold as much a view… I don’t though, nor did the reformers. As a Protestant, I don’t wish to jettison the wisdom of the fathers, but rather, return to them, as they were in the early church.

Kind regards to you, Jose

Lincs

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PRmerger, good to speak again.

Spiritual gifts or not? I’m assuming yes? As there is a charismatic Catholic conference near me annually.

Lincs.

Right back at cha, friend.

I’m not sure what you’re asking regarding infallibility and spiritual gifts?

 

[Lincoln7]

Right back at cha, friend.

I’m not sure what you’re asking regarding infallibility and spiritual gifts?

I doubt any infallible statements have been made on it, your comments on the Magisterium providing the lens through which to view these verses made me ask what the conclusion was.

How are these verses interpreted through the lens? (I suppose that’s my question in a less rambling manner)

To keep it on topic, I reach my conclusion on this as I show above. Combined with numerous other passages in the NT which don’t seem to give indication for a ceasing of spiritual gifts.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

I doubt any infallible statements have been made on it, your comments on the Magisterium providing the lens through which to view these verses made me ask what the conclusion was.

We know what the Church has proclaimed regarding the gift of tongues here:

Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning “favor,” “gratuitous gift,” “benefit.” Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles **or of tongues **- charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church. CCC 2003

It is not an infallible teaching, but binding nonetheless.

Again though, if the verse has not been infallibly defined, then one still has to go along with private nterpretation, I’m sure there are multiple opinions on this in the catholic world.

I think that you are under the misapprehension that Catholics are only bound to assent to teachings that have been infallibly defined.

This is not correct.