Does scripture interpret scripture?

[Lincoln7]

Gary,

Thanks for the link, I have read it through, the issue i have with the idea of the deposit of faith in the Catholic understanding is spelled out quite simply in a sentence or two by CS Lewis, here: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/two-excellent-quotes-by-c-s-lewis-on.html

Its real simple and I see no need to complicate this, its Virtue or Vice. Where your pleasure is so too there is where your heart is. Thats why we “practice” at being Catholic.

To entertain the idea of being the elect, IMHO would indicate a lack of virtue and without doubt humility. While this certainly wouldn’t indicate all think as such, which I believe I have mentioned on another thread. I still can foresee this leading souls astray.

But all of us love sin prior to regeneration Gary, we all love our vices. Why do some then lose this love and instead hate their sin, and love God? Paul answers; “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” (Rom 9:6) It is Gods gift of grace to those whom he has chosen; “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls…” (Rom 9:11)

Him who calls, based not on mans will, but God’s. God gifts them with a heart that loves him, and seeks to come to him.

To keep this topical; does not this align perfectly with Our Lords words in John 6?
“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” (John 6:37) All those called will come to him, those whom the Father has chosen; “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:44)

However St Augustine and Aquinas coincide with the Deposit of Faith or they wouldn’t be Saints, they would be on the “banned” list. Confessions chaper 9 with Augustine covers Predestination. Probably can google and read it. You read Aquinas. Problem with both as is well noted, is when they are read through selective hearing.

Oh indeed they are, I’ve expressed my thoughts on it above. On selectivity, indeed, what they said that does not align with scripture I don’t accept, but I am still indebted to these giants!

To end again with what the Westminister confessions say on this:

1. 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 (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.y
   Acts 15:15; John 5:46; 2 Pet 1:20-21

Kind regards, Gary

Lincs

 

[po18guy]

Church > Infallible Scriptures or is it Church = Infallible scriptures because both spring from same source: Christ?

The bible, in order to be inerrant, must be delivered from God via an infallible authority. Scripture is useless if the Church errs in her judgment in writing, testing and assembling it. As an analogy, think of God’s word as living water, flowing from the source absolutely pure. Yet, it is delivered to us though pipes that can pollute it. The Church is a filter that the Lord placed on those pipes, so that the water as delivered is as pure as that which was sent. Man, by his own authority, is incapable of purifying, as he is the source of the pollution. Thus, the Church is a superior, God-given mechanism for ensuring that the water remains pure. When men (i.e. the reformers) divert this water around the filter by their own authority, error results. The water contains their pollution. Some of that water is only slightly polluted, and some of it is toxic, but to varying degrees, it all remains polluted water.

Here, I think of Jesus teaching in Matthew 7:11 “If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?”

Man gives us words. God gave us a Church to test those words.

God does not dictate letters, but inspires the words of man. He inspires in different languages, which introduces another complication into the distillation process of scripture. Since teaching, whether oral or written, is not a simple regurgitation of the Lord’s exact words, some earthly entity with God-given authority must test the content of the writing, specifically for their consistency with what has been handed on to us by the Apostles, who, in turn, received it from our Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The magisterium of the Church is our filter.

I prefer approx. 150 w/ no consensus on post-denominational Churches and how to account for those. How do you count non-denominational?

The protestant World Christian Encyclopedia offers an even greater number of denominations than I do. There is some disagreement over their counting method. Let’s say that, instead of 40,000 or 20,000, or even 10,000, there are only 500 true denominations - each with some differing twist on God’s word. Any number over one is unacceptable, and ultimately serves the devil by dividing the Body of Christ.

Done, almost finished. On paragraph 2240.

Excellent! You are far ahead of me.

So technically it is “authentic and authoritative” teaching parameters w/ a couple “authentic and authoritative” infallible statements regarding a couple passages?

Non-Catholics make a huge noise about the tiny number of infallible pronouncements made by the Church. What is often ignored is that those pronouncements were normally made in response to the rise of heresy. The Church has an inflexible duty to safeguard revealed truth and makes her findings known to the entire word so that Christians know which teaching is reliable. Saint Paul wrote about such in 1 Corinthians 11:18-19:

“For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you; and in part I believe it. For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you.”

As to those who interpret and teach by their own authority, and who do not test the spirit that leads them (1 John 4:1-3), Saint Paul had this to say in 2 Corinthians 10:18

“For not he who commendeth himself, is approved, but he, whom God commendeth.”

Those who teach and interpret outside of Church authority commend themselves.

I guess what I am asking is, how does one reading the Bible in light of authentic and authoritative teaching if there is no official “authentic and authoritative” bible commentary?

God’s message to man is one of principle, rather than one of precision. Scripture and prophecy both teach principle, whereas the Mosiac law enforced precision. In the coming of Christ, we are freed from that slavery to the precision of the Mosaic law. Thus, in the restoration of man’s freedom, (think: our free will) there may be many ways of following an unchanging principle. The Church is our shepherd in this area. We, the sheep in the sheepfold, have freedom to move about as we please within the fence, but there remains a fence for our protection. Outside of that fence, the wolf attacks. The Church is not confinement, it is protection.

All teaching that is offered within the “normal magisterium” of the Church (i.e. the catechism) may safely be considered to be infallible. Just because it has not been declared dogma does not mean that it is not tested or trustworthy. It simply means that it has not been declared as dogma in response to heresy.

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[jlhargus]

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

The simple asnwer would be if scripture interprets scripture then there would not be thousands of interpretations. When being interpreted the whole of scripture must be taken into account.

 

[stewstew03]

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 (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly

But this (sola scriptura) is unworkable because you don’t know whether or not (A) there really IS a question about the true sense of the scripture – e.g., could be just faulty interpretation, or you misread the passage, or bad translation, etc.; or (B) whether or not what you’re reading is truly inspired by God.

 

[Lincoln7]

But this (sola scriptura) is unworkable because you don’t know whether or not (A) there really IS a question about the true sense of the scripture – e.g., could be just faulty interpretation, or you misread the passage, or bad translation, etc.; or (B) whether or not what you’re reading is truly inspired by God.

Forgive me Stewstew03, I’m not sure I get what you mean in point (A)? As for (B)… We have now reached the never ending canon/authrotiy debate! If you want a good reformed look on this one, I always recommend ‘The Heresy of Orthodoxy’, or the recently released ‘Canon Revisited’ - crossway.org/books/canon-revisited-case/

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[Phyllo]

The simple asnwer would be if scripture interprets scripture then there would not be thousands of interpretations. When being interpreted the whole of scripture must be taken into account.

My friend tells me that they interpret scripture through the HS. Of course when she says that to me all I can see is a streak of lightening. I guess that was a bad illustration she used. Anyway, if understanding of scripture comes from the HS we should all believe the same.

There is only one HS and one understanding(interpretation) of scripture for me and that is the Catholic church. The One true church founded by Jesus.
It can’t be the same HS that allows for thousands of interpretations. Jesus did not want his body shattered into all these individual “churches”.

Just a few more of my cents

I have been reading and enjoying all the posts. Learning a lot too. I didn’t think my little question would cause such a stir:blush:

 

[po18guy]

I didn’t think my little question would cause such a stir:blush:

If scripture interpreted scripture, Peter would not have written 2 Peter 3:16. Scripture interpreting scripture is nonsensical.

 

[JonNC]

=stewstew03;9326914]My understanding is that Sola Scriptura, from a Lutheran perspective, means the Bible alone is the sole rule and norm of faith. If that’s the case, creeds are dicta.

And,

Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than **as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved. **
3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and **symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God. **

It says the Word was with God. If I am “with” my wife, I cannot be both me and my wife. This scripture is not clear it all with regard to the Trinity, and 7.5 million JWs would beg to differ with you on this point.

Clear for Christians, since the rime of the early Church. With due respect, they can beg to differ all they want.

Just because they are all referenced doesn’t mean that all three are one God in Three Persons. It just says that the Father is in one place, and Jesus is in another place, and some sort of spirit (in the form of a dove?) is descending from Heaven. One could argue that the Trinity doesn’t make sense in light of this passage because Jesus was not anointed by spirit until his baptism. If that’s true, he is separate from the other two, namely God the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Yes, one can argue against the consistent teaching of the Church.

Would you argue that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are one being in three persons?

they were not God.

Apparently this is your fallback position - creedal tradition.

Yes, insofar as they confirm scripture, which they do. But not just me, as the Formula of Concord shows.

We can only assume that there is no inerrant and infallible authority that clearly teaches the idea that God is One in Three Persons…

The entirety of the Church does.

So, back to my original question: How do you decide who is included/excluded from the Christian community? It appears to me that JWs have a right to claim themselves as part of that community. [Unless, of course, we appeal to Tradition].

Insofar as Tradition reflects the truth of scripture, I have no problem appealing to it. The confessions do it frequently.

Again, Stew, your perception of what sola scriptura means isn’t my understanding of it.
You are trying to get me to argue in favor of solo scriptura, which I can’t do.

Jon

 

[Patavium]

Jon,

What is sola scriptura to you then? You list yourself as Evangelical Catholic, and I don’t know what that is neither.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

What is sola scriptura to you then? You list yourself as Evangelical Catholic, and I don’t know what that is neither.

Evangelical Catholic - the Lutheran version of high Church, briefly.

Sola scriptura is the practice of hermeunetics, that holds scripture to be the final norm. The Formula of Concord says:

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

Jon

 

[stewstew03]

Forgive me Stewstew03, I’m not sure I get what you mean in point (A)? As for (B)… We have now reached the never ending canon/authrotiy debate! If you want a good reformed look on this one, I always recommend ‘The Heresy of Orthodoxy’, or the recently released ‘Canon Revisited’ - crossway.org/books/canon-revisited-case/

Kind regards

Lincs

By “Point (A)” I mean - how do you know there is actually a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture? For example, let’s say, hypothetically, that a reformer is trying to discern 1 Timothy 3:15. At first glance, he believes the Church is the pillar and ground of truth - but wait, how can that be? Scripture alone is the final authority. So he believes he has a question about the true and full sense of 1 Tim 3:15 and begins searching scripture until he confirms his Sola Scriptura views… as the WCF states:

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 (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

So - how do you know when you have a question about the true and full sense of Scripture? Does scripture, as the sole rule of faith, tell you when to question the true and full sense of scripture?

[See any problems with the logic here?]

As for (B) - why is it that a Christian from the Reformed tradition can never point to a passage that says something like: “the preceding and following pages are truly inspired by God.” Instead, we must read the works of a Reformer, which offers no help at all because it’s fallible and has no equal authority with scripture. Thus, we’re left searching for a final rule of faith from something outside of Scripture to explain to us how Scripture is the final rule of faith…

 

[stewstew03]

Sola scriptura is the practice of hermeunetics, that holds scripture to be the final norm. The Formula of Concord says:

Jon, aren’t you describing “prima scriptura?”

[forum=574085]Sola Scripturas or Prima Scriptura, what’s the reality?
[/forum]

 

[JonNC]

Jon, aren’t you describing “prima scriptura?”

[forum=574085]Sola Scripturas or Prima Scriptura, what’s the reality?
[/forum]

Stew,
What the confessions described I have always known a SS.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

Guanophore,

Ahh, the old Calvin the dictator and rampager idea, these may be of some help:
thevillagechurch.net/the-village-blog/calvin-killed-a-man/
tquid.sharpens.org/calvin.mp3

No, I don’t think he qualifies as either. What he wanted to do, it seems, is establish a Christian society that could and would live the Gospel values. He practiced the same types of governance that were common at the time, which was to consider persons who held differing beliefs as treasonous and menace to society. It is difficult for Americans to grasp why people of good Christian faith would execute those who held opposing beliefs because we have always lived under the freedom of separation of Church and State - at least until recently, when we are being compelled by the govt to purchase products that we consider sinful, pay a fine, or do without.

Indeed he would strongly oppose those who distorted the gospel truth, but as I’ve said, see the above links…

My point is that Calvin replaced the Catholic Church with himself as the infallible interpreter of scripture. He fully believed that his understanding of the text was what it meant, even though he espoused ideas that were unknown to Christianity prior to that time. He considered opposing views at minimum as heresy, and maximum demonic.

Well, with scripture as our guide to what the Apostles believed and taught, I'd say Calvin gets most of it pretty spot on :thumbsup:

I understand. It is diffcult for people who have been separated from the Apostolic Tradition for over 500 years to even consider that what they have been taught is actually a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

 Not so much as throw out, but set scriptural norms above Augustine. You seem to have something against the great reformer for finding patristic support for his theology?

Not at all! I think Calvin was a diligent student and Scholar. He had to reach back through the corruption in the Catholic Church to find a genuine expression of the faith. He found references that reinforced what he had already concluded, which is a common scientific error. He did set his own norms above those of the Fathers of the Church.

Does not the CC do the same thing? Augustine on original sin - Does the Church not disagree with him on this matter, and choose instead to support parts of his theology to fit its own ideas?

The Church has the duty to protect that which was committed to it. There are some of the writings of the Fathers and doctors of the Church that reflect their own thoughts rather than the Teaching of the Apostles. I don’t think the idea of original sin is one of them, though.

 

[guanophore]

Hey Gary,

No historical basis? Hmm. As I’ve said before, the amount of patristic citations used in the institutes is rather large… The man shows a great knowledge of the early fathers and uses them extensively.

Yes, but he uses them by picking and choosing the parts that support his ideas. He rejects the faith held by the writiers, and projects his own conceptions of the doctrine of the faith into what he is reading.

I agree with you,on this point also, there is historical basis. The Gnostics, Arians, and Nestorians did the same thing.

What has no historical basis are the doctrines of the faith that he created. He formulated doctrines that were new- other than those that were delivered by the Apostles.

While obviously not identical with Calvin in every way, their work is extensively used by him, and forms a large basis for his thought. Not too mention of course the numerous passages in the New Testament referring to Divine Election.

I agree with you, he did a more thorough job of finding support for his ideas than anyone else. No doubt that is one of the reasons his innovative doctrines are sill propogating themselves.

To ensure this stays slightly on topic, and isn’t just a thread on John Calvin; Calvins primary basis for predestination is the scriptures, interpreting scriptures.

Yes, I think that is his primary basis for all of his doctrines. He approaches the Scripture from his own point of view, and is able to find confirmation for his ideas by way of the filter he uses.

But, as I've said, in doing this, he draws extensively on the wisdom of the fathers, the tradition does help him as a guide, as it does myself, I simply don't place it on par with Holy Scripture.

No, and neither does the Catholic Church. That is why, when there is a discrepancy in what the Fathers have written with what was committed once for all to the Church by the Aposltes, those parts are not considered relevant to the doctrines of the faith.

 

[guanophore]

Sola Scriptura means simply scripture is the authrotiy in matters of faith, but not to the exclusion of either church or Traditon, it simply doesn’t place them on par with the inspired scriptures.

Scripture cannot wield authority, since that is an activity that requires a person. As a result, all persons who believe they are subjecting themselves and their doctrine to the Scriptural authority actually have become their own authority.

The Apostles delivered the Revelation of God in Christ to the Church in two forms, the Holy Scriptures, and the Sacred Tradition. If the Sacred Tradition were not on par with the Scriptures would not testify that they are, and the Scriptures would not be a par, since they are the product of Sacred Tradition. For some reason anti-Catholics do not believe that Jesus kept his promise to preserve His Word in the Church. They believe that the Sacred Tradition that produced the NT died when the Apostles died.

I guess what your saying in effect is that tradition is also unclear unless properly interpreted by the magisterium?

I suppose you could say that. This was certainly the case with all the early heresies, becuase they predated the construction of the canon.

“Read in the deposit of faith”; but this changes - one day papal infallibility wasn’t considered an essential part of it, then it was.

You seem to be confusing doctrine and dogma. The deposit of faith closed with the death of the last Apostle. Nothing can be added or subtracted from it. (This doctrine is an example of a Sacred Tradition). Dogmas, such as infallibility, are made when people are departing from the doctrine of the faith, and need to have a clear statement about the Deposit of Faith so that they do not fall away from the faith.

I prefer isntead to read them in context for who they were, im happy to let them be who they were, I have no need to read into them anything.

In that case, one must understand that they were thoroughly Catholic, and were infused with Catholic doctrine and practice. Their writings cannot be understood apart from their Catholicity. That is why I said Calvin was picking and choosing what he wanted to use, and rejected the rest. He rejects the fact that the things he believed were true were written by Catholics, who believed opposite about many things.

Are you suggesting with this then, that Catholics don’t hear what they want to hear in the fathers to support their theolgy?

To your credit, Lincoln7, and Calvin also, you have probably studied more of the Fathers than the average Catholic.

The difference with Catholics is that we don’t have our own theology. We consider that we are not permitted to depart from the faith deposited to the Church by the Apostles. When we read the Scriptures and the Fathers, we do so in the light of the Apostolic faith. This is our lens or filter through which we read. This is the lens that Calvin rejected. He supplanted it with his own, which made more sense to him.

 

[guanophore]

So technically it is “authentic and authoritative” teaching parameters w/ a couple “authentic and authoritative” infallible statements regarding a couple passages?

I guess what I am asking is, how does one reading the Bible in light of authentic and authoritative teaching if there is no official “authentic and authoritative” bible commentary?

Kind Regards,

James

Yes. Since the Catholic faith comes from Jesus, and is not extracted from the verses like modern Protestant faiths, there is no line by line infallible commentary on Scripture. Catholics learn the faith like the Bereans did. They listen to those who have been authorized to teach the faith, then study the Scriptures in the light of what they heard.

There are some very good Catholic commentaries, the Navarre being the most recent. Of course Jerome’s commentary has been the standard in the Western Church. One is free to understand the Scriptures any way they like, so long as they remain within the infallible teaching of Christ kept through the Sacred Tradition in the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

So technically it is “authentic and authoritative” teaching parameters w/ a couple “authentic and authoritative” infallible statements regarding a couple passages?

I think it is a mistake to focus on the “infallible statements regarding a couple of passages” concept.

Yes, it’s true that there are only a few passages that the Church has infallibly defined.

However, we have the sure norm for the faith–for practically the *entire *Bible–in the Catechism. It is here that we can look to see the authentic and authoritative interpretations of Christ and His Church. That they are not “infallibly” defined is a point that need not be emphasized.

For Catholics are not bound to assent to only those teachings that have been infallibly defined.

 

[guanophore]

But all of us love sin prior to regeneration , we all love our vices.

This is beyond the scope of this thread, but I would like to consider this statement in the light of the conversion of Cornelius. At what point was he regenerated, and at which point was he loving his sin? I have trouble squaring your statement with the Scripture in this case.

Why do some then lose this love and instead hate their sin, and love God? Paul answers; “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” (Rom 9:6) It is Gods gift of grace to those whom he has chosen; “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls…” (Rom 9:11)

Unfortunately, regenerated persons do still love their sins. For many, it is not an instantaneous change. And after they learn to hate it, they still struggle as St. Paul describes in Rom. 7.

Of course you are right, that it is all God’s mercy, but not everyone has the instant conversion that has become the modern standard of an authentic “born again” experience.

Him who calls, based not on mans will, but God’s. God gifts them with a heart that loves him, and seeks to come to him.

Yes, but even the one that is called may face a struggle against the flesh. This does not mean they were never regenerated.

To keep this topical; does not this align perfectly with Our Lords words in John 6?
“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” (John 6:37) All those called will come to him, those whom the Father has chosen; “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:44)

He will not cast them out, but they can sure jump out of His hand and run off, if they so desire. This is one of the main departures Calvin made to the Apostolic faith.

I’ve expressed my thoughts on it above. On selectivity, indeed, what they said that does not align with scripture I don’t accept, but I am still indebted to these giants!

What you are saying, and what Calvin is saying, is that whatever does not line up with his personal interpetation of the Scriptures gets thrown out. This is the main insidious and damaging nature of SS, and why we have so many splinterings of denominations.

 

[po18guy]

Yes, I think that is his primary basis for all of his doctrines. He approaches the Scripture from his own point of view, and is able to find confirmation for his ideas by way of the filter he uses.

No one could be a Calvinist until Calvin. This is the elephant in the Calvinist living room.