Does scripture interpret scripture?

[Lincoln7]

I, I, I, I…the biggest thing that is always going to keep me in the Catholic Church, with no doubts about its authority, is that a Catholic practicing his faith would begin statements about what he believes with “The Catholic Church believes…” “The Catholic Church would say”…ect ect. Which hasn’t changed in 2000 years. Yeah, buddy.

Ten bajillion other people, Lincs, could start the paragraphs you did with “I think, I believe, I know”, and you’d get ten bajillion other answers. There’s the proof that Scripture doesn’t interpret Scripture, not in the way you seem to be hoping it does, at least.

Not many on here do, most posts I receive never have any official documentation in them. Not counting Jose who above who amply provided some. Most seem to say “I think the catholic church teaches” - who interprets the church for you? Or is it clear on essentials but scripture is not?

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not many on here do, most posts I receive never have any official documentation in them. Not counting Jose who above who amply provided some. Most seem to say “I think the catholic church teaches” - who interprets the church for you? Or is it clear on essentials but scripture is not?

Kind regards

Lincs

Speaking of which, in the event you don’t know (Which I suspect you do, but just in case),

The references in parenthesis at the end of the paragraphs refer to:

DV - Dei Verbum
LG - Lumen Gentium

And the number next to each acronym refers to the paragraph number for the document.

Peace,

Jose

 

[Lincoln7]

Speaking of which, in the event you don’t know (Which I suspect you do, but just in case),

The references in parenthesis at the end of the paragraphs refer to:

DV - Dei Verbum
LG - Lumen Gentium

And the number next to each acronym refers to the paragraph number for the document.

Peace,

Jose

Thanks Jose.

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[stewstew03]

Most seem to say “I think the catholic church teaches” - who interprets the church for you? Or is it clear on essentials but scripture is not?

Lincs,

After conducting a search, I don’t think your claim holds true.

 

[stewstew03]

Phyllo,

I dont think it is nonsense. I think it means we look for** the mainstream of meaning in scripture** where we dont take just one verse as a proof verse but look at the many verses that deal with an issue and derive our interpretation from that. Hence “scripture interpreting scripture.”

Of course we should utilize other avenues to understand what we are reading. Historians and bible experts is what I turn to as well as the other opinions and the early christians.

But I see nothing wrong with the principle of utilizing other verses on the same topic to help us understand a difficult verse.

Rob

Submariner - welcome to the discussion.

What is the “mainstream of meaning in scripture”?

I am unfamiliar with this paradigm.

 

[Lincoln7]

Lincs,

After conducting a search, I don’t think your claim holds true.

I was referring to it in a more general sense, in that very rarely does anyone quote official documentation, in my experience of the forums the last few months. But if anyone feels I have said wrong, I apologise.

Regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

Lincs -

Have you done a thread yet on Church history? If not, interested in doing so in the future?

Thank you,

James

Hi James, only just saw this, sorry for ignoring you.

It depends, history is very big! I would happily chime in on a specific topic from a specific time in history.

Lincs

 

[stewstew03]

I was referring to it in a more general sense, in that very rarely does anyone quote official documentation, in my experience of the forums the last few months. But if anyone feels I have said wrong, I apologise.

Regards

Lincs

From my experience, most Catholics that post here will paraphrase the CCC or some other Church document; at least, those who have been “well-Catechized.”

 

[Lincoln7]

From my experience, most Catholics that post here will paraphrase the CCC or some other Church document; at least, those who have been “well-Catechized.”

Most likely I’m not spotting it! I would like to put more reformed creeds and things in mine, I try to pack a lot of Calvin in! People with more weight in history than myself! But again, my apology still stands.

Lincs

 

[stewstew03]

Most likely I’m not spotting it! I would like to put more reformed creeds and things in mine, I try to pack a lot of Calvin in! People with more weight in history than myself! But again, my apology still stands.

Lincs

No worries Lincs! You’re right to point it out if you think you see it. While Catholics are free to think for themselves (and called to do so), Catholics are not free to be their own Popes.

 

[PRmerger]

I was referring to it in a more general sense, in that very rarely does anyone quote official documentation, in my experience of the forums the last few months. But if anyone feels I have said wrong, I apologise.

Regards

Lincs

Most of us who provide apologia for the Catholic faith do quote official documentation, just not verbatim.

There’s a story of a husband who was objecting to going to this priest’s presentation with “But Father _____ never says anything new!”. The priest responded, "May God help me if I ever “say anything new!” IOW: what he has been repeating in his talks is one and the same with what the Church has been repeating for 2000 years.

And that’s what we Catholics here do, too, give or take a few.

 

[PRmerger]

I would say a knowledge of, and firm trust in Jesus Christ as “My Lord and my God.”

That is what is needed, essentially, to be saved?

What about the fact that there is One God? Is that not an essential?

What about the fact that Scripture is the Word of God? Is that not an essential?

Or that God created the world?

Or that we should love one another as He loves us?

I find it curious that you would take one particular doctrine and claim it to be an essential.

You offer no Scripture that supports this concept of it being an essential.

Now, to be sure, “my Lord and my God” is found in Scripture, but that it is an essential? Not so much.

In order to proclaim something to be an essential you have to use a man-made tradition to declare it to be so.

 

[guanophore]

Guanophore,

Oh indeed, but my point is I can see there several notable Catholics,…who don’t seem to hold to material sufficiency, nor do they think the church teaches it… Indeed I find material sufficiency a rather modern idea,

I am sure you can find all kinds of people calling themselves Catholic who have never even heard of material sufficiency. The faith is not defined by which individuals believe what. Catholicsm, unlike the religions of many of our separated brethren, is not a democratic exercise. The faith is defined by what was passed down to us from the Apostles. This faith holds to the material sufficiency of Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

Or is it clear on essentials but scripture is not?

Kind regards

Lincs

The idea of "essentials’ is also a modernization, along with the material sufficiency idea. The Apostles did not preach a “readers’ digest” version of the faith, in which they attempted to reduce it to it’s smallest common denominator. It was One Faith. When Christendom splintered, discussion began to occur about “essentials”. It is gratifying to see that Evangelicals are starting to revert backward toward unity by coming together on what they believe these are.

 

[Lincoln7]

I am sure you can find all kinds of people calling themselves Catholic who have never even heard of material sufficiency. The faith is not defined by which individuals believe what. Catholicsm, unlike the religions of many of our separated brethren, is not a democratic exercise. The faith is defined by what was passed down to us from the Apostles. This faith holds to the material sufficiency of Scripture.

On of those people was Joseph Ratzinger, before he became Pope Benedict XVI…

If you hold to material sufficiency, and claim the church does too, how do you know what books belong in the bible? Don’t you claim it to be due to the tradition of the church? Would this not necessitate a belief in partim partim, seems as you have pointed out “For the same reason there is no list of books that belong in the Bible” (post #340) You necessitate a belief in partim partim, as you claim without it, Christians have no idea what books are scripture, thus they need extra biblical, unwritten tradition to discern it for them. It seems you are trying to affirm both material sufficiency and partim partim here…

In essence, if you hold material sufficiency, you must change how you view canon development, to something more in line with what’s posited in ‘Canon Revisted’ by Dr. Kruger, which I find excellent. Or if you don’t wish to do as much, you must affirm partim partim…

Did OT believers need an infallible guide to tell them what was Scripture? I think not, yet they were able to discern it… There is certainly church descsion that goes into canon recognition yes, but to place this as the only reason for our knowledge as catholic argumentation goes, falls short. (1).

This whole post is courtesy of this one over at beggars all; aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1465&catid=7
It was easier to acknowledge it at the end like this as oppossed to tonnes of footnotes!

Regards

Lincs

(1) - Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, pg 36

 

[PRmerger]

If you hold to material sufficiency, and claim the church does too, how do you know what books belong in the bible?

Because the Scriptures say that the Church is the authority and it is the Church then that discerned the canon. The Scriptures give permission for the Church to declare the canon.

 

[Lincoln7]

Because the Scriptures say that the Church is the authority and it is the Church then that discerned the canon. The Scriptures give permission for the Church to declare the canon.

Yes the church had a role in canon recognition, but note only role. I would recommend the book to you PR, it gives a very good reformed answer.

To paste something I posted earlier in another thread;

I would refer you to the recently released ‘Canon Revisted’ by Dr Michael Kruger of Westminister Theological Seminary, which deals specifically with this issue. I have no issue with role of the church descsion in canon development, but take issue with it as the “only and definitive role” (1). From the outset the books of scripture were seen as much, hence the NT wItness itself of this, with Peter calling Paul’s work “scripture”, along with the earliest fathers, giving ample testimony to this. The church regonises scripture, that does not place it on par with it… As NT Wright has said; the view you present makes the mistake of a solder, who receives his orders in the mail, and concludes the letter carrier is his CO. Those who distribute the message are not in the same league as the message itself. (2). Indeed if we are concluding that infallible authorities need external validation; who infallibly validates the Catholic church as infallible?

Lincs

(1) - Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, pg 36
(2) - N.*T. Wright, The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), 63. - Quoted in: Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, pg 37

 

[submariner2]

Submariner - welcome to the discussion.

What is the “mainstream of meaning in scripture”?

I am unfamiliar with this paradigm.

Hi stew,

Its what we discuss in bible studies. One should not pin everything on one “proof verse” but rather take the entire teaching of the bible into account. One verse may cause one to lean in one direction until one considers the rest that deal on that issue.

Too many christians try to determine opinions on a single verse when they should be taking context and other parts of scripture into account. This gives a more balanced approach to bible study. Also a good understanding of the history of the times is important as I see it. I read the historians, even the top Catholic historians to get a good balance on what the author of scripture means.

I have found that protestant scholars and Catholic scholars are in general agreement on what the apostle or author of the verses meant at the time they were written. The differnce between Catholic and protestant doctrines lies in how scripture is used.

Using scripture and scholarship to interpret scripture is the protestant method to determinie doctrine, whereas the Catholic method seem more to extrapolate by logic of what ought to be in the present age. They dont seem too concerned that a bible verse may not actually support their dogma.

Naturally they will come to different conclusions about some issues.

Rob

 

[guanophore]

On of those people was Joseph Ratzinger, before he became Pope Benedict XVI…

If you hold to material sufficiency, and claim the church does too, how do you know what books belong in the bible? Don’t you claim it to be due to the tradition of the church? Would this not necessitate a belief in partim partim, seems as you have pointed out “For the same reason there is no list of books that belong in the Bible” (post #340) You necessitate a belief in partim partim, as you claim without it, Christians have no idea what books are scripture, thus they need extra biblical, unwritten tradition to discern it for them. It seems you are trying to affirm both material sufficiency and partim partim here…

Material sufficiency does not deny revelation of God that is not contained in Scripture. Yes, the Apostles taught us that His reveleation exists in both Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture. They are considered two equal and complimentary strands.

The reason that the Bible is materially sufficient is because it was produced by and through Sacred Tradition.

In essence, if you hold material sufficiency, you must change how you view canon development, to something more in line with what’s posited in ‘Canon Revisted’ by Dr. Kruger, which I find excellent. Or if you don’t wish to do as much, you must affirm partim partim…

No, I need not. Catholics believe that :

2 Tim 3:13-17
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Was written in reference to the Septuagint. Therefore, Timothy had everything he needed to be instructed in salvation before any word of the NT was ever written.

Did OT believers need an infallible guide to tell them what was Scripture? I think not, yet they were able to discern it…

If this were true, then Jesus would not have had to spend so much time correcting their wrong ideas, and the Apostles would not have needed the inspiration of the HS to guide them and direct their teaching with regard to the contents of the OT. Clearly, the vast majority of Jews confirm that your thinking is false on this, since they rejected Christ, and continue to do so today.

Even the believers on the road to Emmaus, who already were Christians, needed to have their minds opened to the Scriptures’ meaning as they pertained to Christ.

Peter testifies that beleivers “twisted” the scriptures because they were ignorant and unstable. This seems to indicate there were problems with the discernment process, don’t you think?

There is certainly church descsion that goes into canon recognition yes, but to place this as the only reason for our knowledge as catholic argumentation goes, falls short. (1).

Sorry, you lost me here.

 

[guanophore]

From the outset the books of scripture were seen as much, hence the NT wItness itself of this, with Peter calling Paul’s work “scripture”, along with the earliest fathers, giving ample testimony to this.

Yes. memoirs and letters written by, for, and about Catholics.

The church regonises scripture, that does not place it on par with it..

I agree. The Church is on par with Scripture because Jesus placed her there, by breathing into her the breath of life. When He breathed upon the fledgling Church, she also became theopneustos. The HS is the Soul of the Church. It is the divinity of the HS, and of Christ as her Head that places the Church where she is.

Those who distribute the message are not in the same league as the message itself.

Then why does Jesus promise HIs followers that they will live forever? Why does He say that those to whom the Word came are gods?

(2). Indeed if we are concluding that infallible authorities need external validation; who infallibly validates the Catholic church as infallible?

The Scripture cannot be infallible. Fallibility is the ability to make an error. In order to have this quality, or be protected from it, one must have the ability to act. Fallibility requires an act of will, discernment and intention of purpose. The Scriptures, Holy as they are, to not have these qualities, which belong only to persons. T’hat is why the effort to substitute the authority appointed by Christ with the Holy Writings has proven a dismal failure, creating never ending splinterings in the Body.

It is Jesus who validates the Church through the HS.