Does scripture interpret scripture?

[Lincoln7]

From what I have seen however, the Reformed/Calvinists really didn’t quote much from say St. John of Damascus or St. Maximus the Confessor. I’ve seen Reformed theologians quote Augustine and Aquinas quite a bit, but when it comes to the Eastern saints there seems to be a real blind spot.

You’re quite right, we are very much Christians who stand in a more western tradition. There are certainly plenty of citations of eastern fathers in the institutes, but not as many as from Augustine of course.

Lincs

 

[PRmerger]

My readings of Calvin seem to bring out the Love of God in a profound way; God would send his Only Son to die for me, and by his grace alone, choose to welcome me into his family. That’s incredible.

Lincs

It is incredible, indeed.

And if that’s the gist of Calvin’s doctrine, then all Catholics are going to read that and give a resounding,

Calvin was simply repeating that which the Church has been proclaiming for 2000 years.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You’re quite right, we are very much Christians who stand in a more western tradition.

Seems so, why?

 

[guanophore]

As for ad Hominem, indeed in places it is present, as it is in virtually all works for both sides in the reformation period I have ever read.

I have noticed there is a great deal of it too. Seems like the writers were hurt and angry with each other. The same applies to the Great Schism.

Do you find the dogmatic pronoucements of Trent to contain ad Hominem attacks? When the council made a dogmatic pronouncement on the canon, did you find that to be directed toward anyone?

Also comparing Calvinism to JW seems a bit of a stretch, if one is unhappy with some of the reformed teachings, well, I always prefer to discuss them from a scriptural perspective than ones own subjective opinions. We both accept there are some hard truths out there.

I understand what you are saying, but you must realize that from our point of view, all Reformed theology that claims to be from the “scriptural perspective” is all one’s own subjective opinion. In asmuch as they perspective deviates from that which was committed once for all to the Church, it constitutes “a different gospel”. That is why we are bound by obedience to reject it.

Augustine is indeed his most quoted theologian, and both of them are very much western Christians.

Yes. All the Reformation theologies are a reaction to abuses in the Latin Rite of Catholicism that were rampant in Europe at the time. The problem is that none of the Reformers knew about, or could integrate Eastern Christian thought into their doctrines. I don’t know if Calvin even knew about the ancient Orthodox Church, as he does not seem to be a traveled man. He would be appalled as much by what was committed by the Apostles to the Church in Antioch of Syria as he was “popish” practices. Since his response to “romanism” does not adequately address other Apostolic Churches, it fails in thoroughness. He would be just as unable to convince Eastern Christians with his “different gospel” than he is Roman Catholics.

 

[Lincoln7]

It is incredible, indeed.

And if that’s the gist of Calvin’s doctrine, then all Catholics are going to read that and give a resounding,

Calvin was simply repeating that which the Church has been proclaiming for 2000 years.

Indeed, Calvin was fully aware of, and utilised the teaching of the church that was present up until his time.

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

Guanophore,

Do you find the dogmatic pronoucements of Trent to contain ad Hominem attacks? When the council made a dogmatic pronouncement on the canon, did you find that to be directed toward anyone?

Not really no, I think they are wrong, but utilise little ad Hominem, in the same was reformed confessions don’t use it. They certainly strongly condemn false teaching though.

I understand what you are saying, but you must realize that from our point of view, all Reformed theology that claims to be from the “scriptural perspective” is all one’s own subjective opinion. In asmuch as they perspective deviates from that which was committed once for all to the Church, it constitutes “a different gospel”. That is why we are bound by obedience to reject it.

Indeed and for me the Gospel proclaimed by Rome is a clear departure from that of scripture, our clearest guide to what the apostolic message was. As such the CC proclaims a different gospel, and I am bound to reject it.

Yes. All the Reformation theologies are a reaction to abuses in the Latin Rite of Catholicism that were rampant in Europe at the time. The problem is that none of the Reformers knew about, or could integrate Eastern Christian thought into their doctrines. I don’t know if Calvin even knew about the ancient Orthodox Church, as he does not seem to be a traveled man. He would be appalled as much by what was committed by the Apostles to the Church in Antioch of Syria as he was “popish” practices. Since his response to “romanism” does not adequately address other Apostolic Churches, it fails in thoroughness. He would be just as unable to convince Eastern Christians with his “different gospel” than he is Roman Catholics.

Again, scripture being our clearest indication of Apostolic thought, he gets much of it spot on.

Lincs

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed, Calvin was fully aware of, and utilised the teaching of the church that was present up until his time.

Lincs

So I am not certain, Lincs, why you made that statement then?

Saying that Calvin proclaimed that we are saved by God’s grace has as much insight as if you said Calvin proclaimed that Jesus is divine.

IOW: why bring that up? No one here would disagree with either of those things.

 

[Lincoln7]

So I am not certain, Lincs, why you made that statement then?

Saying that Calvin proclaimed that we are saved by God’s grace has as much insight as if you said Calvin proclaimed that Jesus is divine.

IOW: why bring that up? No one here would disagree with either of those things.

Because one poster indicated he perceived a lack of the teaching of Gods Grace in Calvin, I was simply saying as much is not the case at all.

Lincs

 

[PRmerger]

Because one poster indicated he perceived a lack of the teaching of Gods Grace in Calvin, I was simply saying as much is not the case at all.

Lincs

Okay. Fair enough.

 

[guanophore]

Indeed, Calvin was fully aware of, and utilised the teaching of the church that was present up until his time.

Lincs

I think he did the best he could with what he had, but he was not learned in ancient languages as Jerome was, and he did not have the documents from the ancient faith in the East. Unfortunately, his conclusions are contrary to the faith that was deposited once for all the the Saints in the East, as well as the West. His formulations constitute “a different gospel” than we have received from the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

Guanophore,

Not really no, I think they are wrong, but utilise little ad Hominem, in the same was reformed confessions don’t use it. They certainly strongly condemn false teaching though.

Indeed and for me the Gospel proclaimed by Rome is a clear departure from that of scripture, our clearest guide to what the apostolic message was. As such the CC proclaims a different gospel, and I am bound to reject it.

Again, scripture being our clearest indication of Apostolic thought, he gets much of it spot on.

Lincs

This leaves the reader curious about your presence here at CAF. What brings you here?

 

[Lincoln7]

I think he did the best he could with what he had, but he was not learned in ancient languages as Jerome was, and he did not have the documents from the ancient faith in the East. Unfortunately, his conclusions are contrary to the faith that was deposited once for all the the Saints in the East, as well as the West. His formulations constitute “a different gospel” than we have received from the Apostles.

Really? Calvin was quite accomplished in Greek and Hebrew, one of only a few in Europe of his day who were. On his sources from the east, I can see quite a lot of them in the institutes index… And of course I don’t agree with your statement his conclusions were different to the Apostles teaching and faith once for all delivered.

This leaves the reader curious about your presence here at CAF. What brings you here?

I am committed to my faith, but that doesn’t mean I can’t learn anything whilst participating here.

Lincs

 

[bogeydogg]

Really? Calvin was quite accomplished in Greek and Hebrew, one of only a few in Europe of his day who were. On his sources from the east, I can see quite a lot of them in the institutes index… And of course I don’t agree with your statement his conclusions were different to the Apostles teaching and faith once for all delivered.

I am committed to my faith, but that doesn’t mean I can’t learn anything whilst participating here.

Lincs

Oh now really! Do you sincerely believe that Calvin was “one of the few” in EUROPE who was well versed in Greek and Hebrew. Not one Jesuit? Not one Lutheran? Not one Anglican?

Come on the claim falls into the category of ridiculous as soon as it is made.

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

Really? Calvin was quite accomplished in Greek and Hebrew, one of only a few in Europe of his day who were. On his sources from the east, I can see quite a lot of them in the institutes index… And of course I don’t agree with your statement his conclusions were different to the Apostles teaching and faith once for all delivered.

I am committed to my faith, but that doesn’t mean I can’t learn anything whilst participating here.

Lincs

Of course most everyone is capable of learning, what I was curious about was, what could you hope to learn? It is a forum that provides “Catholic answers”, which you are very solidly rejecting.

 

[Lincoln7]

Oh now really! Do you sincerely believe that Calvin was “one of the few” in EUROPE who was well versed in Greek and Hebrew. Not one Jesuit? Not one Lutheran? Not one Anglican?

Come on the claim falls into the category of ridiculous as soon as it is made.

God Bless

Yes I think he was one of a few people who knew several languages on the continent of his time, along with other Protestants and Catholics. Where do I say in my post Calvin was the only one and not any of the other categories you list had no one who was multilingual?

I think you may misunderstand me… I’m simply saying that for the time to know multiple languages was uncommon, certain men did.

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

Of course most everyone is capable of learning, what I was curious about was, what could you hope to learn? It is a forum that provides “Catholic answers”, which you are very solidly rejecting.

To learn what others believe, as opposed to caricatures. To grow in my own faith, to answer questions people put up on here in which answers are asked of Protestants.

Lincd

 

[guanophore]

To learn what others believe, as opposed to caricatures. To grow in my own faith, to answer questions people put up on here in which answers are asked of Protestants.

Lincd

In that case, you will no doubt be kept busy here! Most Catholics have never read Calvin, and many have a warped perception about Protestantism.

 

[1voice]

How were people saved before the cannon of scripture was compiled? If you go with Sola Scriptura they didn’t have the bible as we know it.

Phyllo

In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
Acts 17:30

 

[stewstew03]

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

I disagree - if one relies on something other than scripture to assist them in interpreting scripture, then he has obviously violated the principle of SS.

 

[stewstew03]

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

Why would we need to read the Augsburg Confessions? It seems that if the Bible alone is the norm, then it is the only standard by which the Lutheran Church should be judged.