Does scripture interpret scripture?

[GaryTaylor]

And yet, it have to have happened at least once, with Luther, or else there wouldn’t be a Lutheran Church to begin with. If it hasn’t happened in the Lutheran Church as a whole, that just means that the Lutheran Church is staying faithful to the changes of one man who did succumb.

Seems to me all of reformers become very difficult to contend with in one aspect or another. Had this not been the case Luther being the example here, then he would have been in either the West or East Church.

Have to conclude he never intended to leave the church but to correct what he believed was wrong. Then as we see later with the Eastern church, he was unwilling to change his theology. Has was offered communion with the East. He insisted it was “his way” and thats just not going to work with the Apostolic Church’s.

Reminds me of Chestertons statement; “The only thing wrong with Christianity is Christians” to badly paraphrase.

 

[bogeydogg]

Seems to me all of reformers become very difficult to contend with in one aspect or another. Had this not been the case Luther being the example here, then he would have been in either the West or East Church.

Have to conclude he never intended to leave the church but to correct what he believed was wrong. Then as we see later with the Eastern church, he was unwilling to change his theology. Has was offered communion with the East. He insisted it was “his way” and thats just not going to work with the Apostolic Church’s.

Reminds me of Chestertons statement; “The only thing wrong with Christianity is Christians” to badly paraphrase.

Well to be fair both Calvin and Zwinlgi called Luther a heretic and Calvin said he had led people into “superstitious popery” because of his devotion to the Eucharist, Baptism and Penitence/Reconciliation. To this day Lutheran Churches stand apart from “protestant churches” because of this fundamental rejection by other Reformers (ie the Radical Reformers) of the Sacraments which reduced the means of grace to symbols and faith to credulity.

And once you have divorced yourself from Scripture and the Church to such a degree it is not surprising that the “flood of iniquity” of which Carinal Cajetan warned has been unleashed and personal interpretation has overruled thousands of years of sound agreed upon teaching in history.

Which is really all Tradition is.

The chief example being the treatment of Sacraments and the pagan capturing of the Church by dispensationalism in the West.

God Bless

 

[Lincoln7]

po18guy;9331790:

They behave that way, but they don’t think of it in those terms. As our resident Calvanist on this thread has demonstrated, they believe that he has “rightly interpreted the Scriptures” (because his framework agrees with what they also believe to be the right interpretation).

This is the legacy of every SS. They believe that the HS is guiding them into “all truth” and that they way they understand the scriptures is the “correct” view. It does not concern them that their ideas were unknown to Christendom for 1500 years.

I may have to change my religious beliefs section on my profile to read “resident Calvinist” now Yes we do listen to him, quite a fair bit. As you have chosen Rome to be your guide because it’s framework agreess with what you personally see in history and scripture. Same argument…

Regards

Lincs

 

[guanophore]

No, not the Lutheran Church. Although among other groups sola seems to have devolved into solo, and individual interpretation. Or, rather, influential individuals do their own interpreting, persuade others, and a new denomination is formed.

Yes. This is the most insidious and destructive fruit of SS. It can be thwarted to the degree that Sacred Tradition is integrated, such as JonNC has pointed out, maintaining hte creeds and councils that are part of the Apostolic faith.

 

[guanophore]

I may have to change my religious beliefs section on my profile to read “resident Calvinist” now Yes we do listen to him, quite a fair bit. As you have chosen Rome to be your guide because it’s framework agreess with what you personally see in history and scripture. Same argument…

Regards

Lincs

Lincs you have left po’s post id in the quote, and mine at the top, so it looks like my quote belongs to someone else. When you hit reply and you get two tags like that you have to delete the one that does not apply.

We welcome you as our resident Calvanist whether you wish to identify yourself as such, or not.

But you misunderstand about how Catholics receive the faith. We do so just as the originall Christians (who did not have a NT) dis so. We receive the faith from those who are authorized to teach it (successors of the Aposltes). Rome is a symbolic reference to the foundation of the faith, and from the days that Peter and Paul labored together in Rome to lay the foundation of the Church, Rome has been considered pre-eminent in the preservation of that faith. We don’t look to Rome because “Rome’s interpretation agrees” with our personal one,but because the faith was meant to be recieved, not composed by individuals. The faith of the Aposltes is One Faith, whole and entire, before a word of the NT was ever written. This faith has been preserved infallibly by the HS in the Church, and we are brought into this faith, many of us through baptism as infants and grow in knowledge of it.

It is a completely different approach than reading on one’s own, coming up with conclusions about the text,then finding a group that confirms those conclusions.

Also, please be advised that for most Catholics, the faith is a narrow and difficult path,a nd many times far from “agreeable”. We do not espouse the doctrines of the Apostles because they personally appeal to us, as many of them do not. We are in a constant state of battle against the world, the flesh,a nd the devil. We are not seeking “agreeableness” but TRUTH! We are pursuaded that the TRUTH is preserved in Rome, and that is why we espuose it, whether we are agreeable with it, or not.

When Sola Scripturists disagree, they can go down the street and open a new church. We do not have this perogative, as we are called upon by the Apostles to reject any gospel that was not delivered to us by them. This is why we have to reject the positions of the Reformers. To us, they constitute “a different gospel”.

 

[stewstew03]

I may have to change my religious beliefs section on my profile to read “resident Calvinist” now Yes we do listen to him, quite a fair bit. As you have chosen Rome to be your guide because it’s framework agreess with what you personally see in history and scripture. Same argument…

Regards

Lincs

In other words, you rely on (Pope) Calvin to help you interpret scripture.

 

[guanophore]

I absolutely agree. SS is not individual interpretation. It is a pactice of hermeunetics, and hermeunetics is the responsibility of the Church. I do not practice individual interpretation in articles of faith/ doctrine. For example, to be Lutheran, I have no position to define the Lord’s Supper in any way other than what the Church has.

I would disagree with the claim that sola scriptura leads to solo scriptura. It hasn’t happened in the Lutheran Church.

Jon

Jon

YES. But then we get back to the definition of “Church”. We are in agreement that hermeneutics is the duty of the Church, but Catholics are not free to change the definition of “church” passed on to us by the Apostles. Church for the Aposltes was those in unity with them, and their successors, the bishops. The true Church was recognized this way, and members of it are not free to depart from this unity.

During the Reformation, many were disgusted by the corruption of church officials, so a new definition of “church” was coined, so that those believers could seek out a “pure gospel” that was not victimized by human corruption. That new definition has opened the door for a plethora of divisions to occur.

 

[po18guy]

guanophore;9333136:

I may have to change my religious beliefs section on my profile to read “resident Calvinist” now Yes we do listen to him, quite a fair bit. As you have chosen Rome to be your guide because it’s framework agreess with what you personally see in history and scripture. Same argument…

Regards

Lincs

Is Calvin is your pope? You listen to him, but is is error when Catholics listen to Benedict XVI?

 

[Lincoln7]

] Is Calvin is your pope? You listen to him, but is is error when Catholics listen to Benedict XVI?

Hi po18guy,

No he is not, I’m at liberty to disagree with him in matters of faith, which I do. Namley baptism.

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

In other words, you rely on (Pope) Calvin to help you interpret scripture.

I rely on teachers, of whom he is one, to help me understand scripture in places yes. There is certainly nothing in that which opposes the principle of SS.

Regards

Lincs

 

[po18guy]

Hi po18guy,

No he is not, I’m at liberty to disagree with him in matters of faith, which I do. Namley baptism.

Regards

Lincs.

An honest question: What is truth? That which you agree with, or find comfortable? I mean, there seems to be no unchanging foundation.

 

[Lincoln7]

An honest question: What is truth? That which you agree with, or find comfortable? I mean, there seems to be no unchanging foundation.

Jesus Christ.

My disagreements are based upon exegesis and argument, the short work simply named ‘The teaching of the church regarding baptism’ by Karl Barth, amongst others was a big part of it.

Regards

Lincs

 

[mackbrislawn]

f

An honest question: What is truth? That which you agree with, or find comfortable? I mean, there seems to be no unchanging foundation.

Yep, an honest question. It does seem to come down to that. I am personably not comfortable with Calvinism, and find it absolutely repugnant. If scripture teaches it, then scripture is wrong. But scripture is not wrong, so Calvinism is wrong. To me, Calvinism seems to negate the very reason for religion, and for scripture.

However, some find it congenial, for whatever reason. But for me it is a great mystery why.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I rely on teachers, of whom he is one, to help me understand scripture in places yes. There is certainly nothing in that which opposes the principle of SS.

Regards

Lincs

Yes, you may rely on teachers to help you understand, but you are also free not to rely on teachers. You may ignore them all you want, and be your own teacher. It is your choice. This is how sola scriptura becomes solo scriptura.

 

[Lincoln7]

f

Yep, an honest question. It does seem to come down to that. I am personably not comfortable with Calvinism, and find it absolutely repugnant. If scripture teaches it, then scripture is wrong. But scripture is not wrong, so Calvinism is wrong. To me, Calvinism seems to negate the very reason for religion, and for scripture.

However, some find it congenial, for whatever reason. But for me it is a great mystery why.

Naturally I view it as scriptural. Dr White did a great radio discussion here in the UK a few days ago discussing the doctrines of grace in the words of our Lord, here:

Premier Christian Radio - Premier Plus

Discover Premier Christian Radio, your destination for contemporary Christian music, insightful conversations, and faith-based discussions. Join us and enrich your spiritual journey with uplifting content!

www.premierchristianradio.com

Im unsure why one would think it negates the need for religion or scriptures, may I respectfully ask why, Mack?

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

Yes, you may rely on teachers to help you understand, but you are also free not to rely on teachers. You may ignore them all you want, and be your own teacher. It is your choice. This is how sola scriptura becomes solo scriptura.

Indeed, hence why I align myself with the historic reformed creeds. To lay down a summary of belief which accuratley reflect the teachings of scripture.

You too are free to also ignore teachers and become your own, no? Im not going to try and defend solo scriptura as I don’t adhere to it.

Lincs

 

[mackbrislawn]

Naturally I view it as scriptural. Dr White did a great radio discussion here in the UK a few days ago discussing the doctrines of grace in the words of our Lord, here:
http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={D4E01CE8-0DDD-4C4A-BCF0-9E8B4D98166F}

Im unsure why one would think it negates the need for religion or scriptures, may I respectfully ask why, Mack?

Kind regards

Lincs

I may not completely understand it; especially as there are probably several varieties of the idea of predestination. My understanding is that some are predestined for salvation, and the others for damnation. If so, why have church, why have scripture, why have religion? God should more logically communicate directly to those people, instead of the indirect methods of written words, or other individuals in church. Why put people into anxiety over whether they are saved or not.

I understand 5 point Calvinism to teach that you can know in this life whether you are saved or not. Conversely, it also means that you can know in this life whether you are damned or not. What a thing to know, that for sure you are going to hell.

How many true believers in Calvinism consider themselves not to be of the elect?

Thanks, Mack

 

[po18guy]

Jesus Christ.

My disagreements are based upon exegesis and argument, the short work simply named ‘The teaching of the church regarding baptism’ by Karl Barth, amongst others was a big part of it.

Regards

Lincs

Regarding infant baptism, do you think that something done in God’s name, with great faith and with eternal salvation in mind, has no effect, either temporal or eternal? Our Lord differs.

Do you believe in original sin? That is the sticking point, and probably why you hold to Augustine’s peculiar thought.

But neven mind baptism! Many Calvinists have thrown it out. They cite scripture.

So, are you then an Augustinian, Calvinist, Barthian Christian? To me, it seems confusing, like building a car from the options list. Honestly, to seek out and rely on the teaching of a variety of differing men of differing persuasions seems a tad like gnosticism to me.

I have no argument with you, as long as you confess Christ and seek the truth, with an open heart, no matter where it leads you. I have chosen the path which history teaches gives me the greatest chance at holiness and thus, salvation, To remain outside of, or in an imperfect communion with, the Church that Christ founded places that salvation at some degree of risk. In that regard, I am no gambler.

 

[JonNC]

And yet, it have to have happened at least once, with Luther, or else there wouldn’t be a Lutheran Church to begin with. If it hasn’t happened in the Lutheran Church as a whole, that just means that the Lutheran Church is staying faithful to the changes of one man who did succumb.

While Luther was a central player, to be sure, the Lutheran Church is not Luther. There are things that Luther said that is not accepted within Lutheran teaching. Of Luther’s writings, only three are part of the Book of Concord.
The Augsburg Confessions makes this important point:
*Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches. *

Of all the communions whose roots are in the reformation, the Lutheran Reformation strived to do as is quoted above. Catholics may not view it this way, but I would contend that not many have acutally read the Augsburg Confessions, and probably not even the Confutation.

Jon

 

[mackbrislawn]

Indeed, hence why I align myself with the historic reformed creeds. To lay down a summary of belief which accuratley reflect the teachings of scripture.

You too are free to also ignore teachers and become your own, no? Im not going to try and defend solo scriptura as I don’t adhere to it.

Lincs

To be honest, I don’t see any difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura. In either case, you are permitted to rely on someone else’s viewpoints or strictly upon your own. It depends upon your personal preferences. If you don’t have to consult tradition or the reformers, why do so, if you like to form your own conclusions, or don’t like the conclusions of any other interpreter?