Does scripture interpret scripture?

[guanophore]

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

Rob, I think you have confused the duty of the Magesterium with how the doctrines of the faith are preserved. Catholics don’t extrapolate doctrine from scripture, you are correct. We have the faith whole and entire, delivered once for all to the saints before the NT was written. We must harmonize all that was written with what was entrusted to the Church, since they cannot contradict one another. The CC is not free to depart or add to the doctrines that were deposited. It has nothing to do with human logic, but depends upon God’s revelation.

The Magesterium (teaching authority) of the Church has the duty of making that once for all deposit of faith applicable in each generation. In this process, logic is used, as well as science.

All the Scriptures suport the Apostolic faith because they Scripture and the Kerygma come from the same place. If it seems to you that they contradict, it is because you don’t properly understand one, the other, or both.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

:clapping:

A more trenchant and insightful point has not been made on this thread.

Writings, no matter how holy and sacred, cannot shepherd a flock. That requires a shepherd. That is, a person. Or people. IOW: a Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes the church had a role in canon recognition, but note only role.

I am not sure what this means. Are you suggesting that there was another human entity that provided assistance in discerning the canon of Scripture?

 

[PRmerger]

I have no issue with role of the church descsion in canon development, but take issue with it as the “only and definitive role”

But you can see how the Church playing a “role” in discerning the canon does not conflict with the paradigm of the material sufficiency of Scripture, yes?

That is the point of this discussion.

You were first objecting to Catholics proclaiming the material sufficiency of Scripture while also claiming that the Church discerned the canon.

We were able to resolve your objection thus far, yes?

The discussion regarding whether the Church had the “only and definitive role” in this discernment is different.

 

[guanophore]

:clapping:

A more trenchant and insightful point has not been made on this thread.

Writings, no matter how holy and sacred, cannot shepherd a flock. That requires a shepherd. That is, a person. Or people. IOW: a Church.

This is a point that seems to get lost on our SS brethren. They use this verse to support their view:

2 Tim 3
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.

But this verse does not say that the SCRIPTURE is what equips the saints. It says scripture is profitable in the duty of equipping the saints. But to whom is given the duty of equipping?

Eph 4:8-16

“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.”

…11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.

Scripture is profitable to complete the task of equipping, which has been given to those whom He has gifted and appointed for this task. Jesus did not set things up so that each individual could pick up the Scriptures and, by theri own private interpretation, come to fullness in the faith. On the contrary, this equipping is to occur within and through the Church, which is ONE BODY, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Actually, submariner, this is not true at all.

Consider this (non-exhaustive) list of issues that Christians have differing doctrines on, all from reading the very same Scriptures (well, give or take 7 books).

• Abortion
• Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
• Baptism (sprinkling? Immersion? Infant? Adult? Sacrament? Ordinance? In Jesus’ name only? Using Trinitarian formula?)
• Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help themselves?)
• Church leadership, or no leadership
• Death/Soul Sleep
• Did Jesus use wine or grape juice at the Last Supper
• Divorce
• Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed
• Head coverings or no head coverings
• Health and wealth gospel
• Hell, or no hell
• Homosexuality
• Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
• Judge others, don’t judge others
• Lord’s day on Saturday or Sunday
• Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
• Once saved, always saved
• Ordination
• Predestination
• Rapture
• Sola scriptura/private interpretation
• The Eucharist (Communion)
• Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
• Trinity vs. Unitarianism
• What’s a sin, what is not a sin
• When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
• Women pastors, no women pastors

 

[guanophore]

I am not sure what this means. Are you suggesting that there was another human entity that provided assistance in discerning the canon of Scripture?

No, he is referring to the criteria used by the Church to determine what belonged in the canon. One of those criteria was that it was recognized and used as Scripture as soon as it was received. The letters and “memoirs” of the Apostles (gospels) were used during Mass. The point is that the Church proclaimed what was already accepted - that the writings had a divine source.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

This, too, is incorrect.

Catholicism does not extract its doctrine from the Scriptures (rather, the Scriptures reflect the teachings of the Church); the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ. Our faith comes from one source: Jesus Christ, through his apostles, to the Church.

They dont seem too concerned that a bible verse may not actually support their dogma

This is a point that comes from an impoverished understanding of Catholicism. You cannot name one Catholic dogma that is contrary to any bible verse.

 

[PRmerger]

No, he is referring to the criteria used by the Church to determine what belonged in the canon. One of those criteria was that it was recognized and used as Scripture as soon as it was received. The letters and “memoirs” of the Apostles (gospels) were used during Mass. The point is that the Church proclaimed what was already accepted - that the writings had a divine source.

Ah, so in other words he is referring to Sacred Tradition? :yup:

 

[Lincoln7]

Give me a few mins, or hours Lots to reply to here!

Lincs

 

[PRmerger]

Give me a few mins, or hours Lots to reply to here!

Lincs

Take your time, friend.

 

[Lincoln7]

PR,

But you can see how the Church playing a “role” in discerning the canon does not conflict with the paradigm of the material sufficiency of Scripture, yes?

That is the point of this discussion.

You were first objecting to Catholics proclaiming the material sufficiency of Scripture while also claiming that the Church discerned the canon.

We were able to resolve your objection thus far, yes?

The discussion regarding whether the Church had the “only and definitive role” in this discernment is different.

indeed I can, for such is the position I hold, the church does have a role, but I object to the often quoted position by many on here that without a church infallible decision, I can have no idea of whats canon and what’s not. The book I keep recommending chides those who would remove an self authentication from the scriptures, but also chides those who would remove the church from the paradigm…

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

Guanophore,

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.

I’d say the Catholic paradigm results not in a three legged stool, but with sola eclessia. (with respect Guan)

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?

For he has saved them. I’m unsure how this means that the utterances of God are to be held as not above human words and authorities?

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.

On the infallibility of scripture, I would rather link to the great champion and servant of God, Charles Spurgeon; spurgeongems.org/vols34-36/chs2013.pdf

Regards

Lincs

 

[submariner2]

Rob, I think you have confused the duty of the Magesterium with how the doctrines of the faith are preserved. Catholics don’t extrapolate doctrine from scripture, you are correct. We have the faith whole and entire, delivered once for all to the saints before the NT was written. We must harmonize all that was written with what was entrusted to the Church, since they cannot contradict one another. The CC is not free to depart or add to the doctrines that were deposited. It has nothing to do with human logic, but depends upon God’s revelation.

The Magesterium (teaching authority) of the Church has the duty of making that once for all deposit of faith applicable in each generation. In this process, logic is used, as well as science.

All the Scriptures suport the Apostolic faith because they Scripture and the Kerygma come from the same place. If it seems to you that they contradict, it is because you don’t properly understand one, the other, or both.

guano,

Thanks for the clarification. I was merely descibing what I had understood from other Catholics.

But the Scriptures are the Word of God and the edicts of the magesterium is not? Am I right on that? And the teaching of the Magisterium can change from one era to another?
Am I right on that also?

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Actually, submariner, this is not true at all.

Consider this (non-exhaustive) list of issues that Christians have differing doctrines on, all from reading the very same Scriptures (well, give or take 7 books).

• Abortion
• Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
• Baptism (sprinkling? Immersion? Infant? Adult? Sacrament? Ordinance? In Jesus’ name only? Using Trinitarian formula?)
• Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help themselves?)
• Church leadership, or no leadership
• Death/Soul Sleep
• Did Jesus use wine or grape juice at the Last Supper
• Divorce
• Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed
• Head coverings or no head coverings
• Health and wealth gospel
• Hell, or no hell
• Homosexuality
• Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
• Judge others, don’t judge others
• Lord’s day on Saturday or Sunday
• Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
• Once saved, always saved
• Ordination
• Predestination
• Rapture
• Sola scriptura/private interpretation
• The Eucharist (Communion)
• Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
• Trinity vs. Unitarianism
• What’s a sin, what is not a sin
• When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
• Women pastors, no women pastors

PR,

I am speaking of the opinions of scholars regarding individual verses. Of course there are differences between one christian and another depending on what verse they emphasize. This would be natural because the NT has many varied teachings in it.

But looking at a particular verse or set of verses by a particular apostle the scholars seem to come to the same conclusion regardless of if they are protestant or Catholic.

For example scripture has a variety of opinions on woman pastors but when these are discussed by either Catholic or protestant scholars they generally discuss it in the same manner and view it the same. That is what I mean.

Also, I think most of the differences you list are not significant differences between most churches. I agree that some make a big deal over one or the other however

Rob.

 

[PRmerger]

But the Scriptures are the Word of God and the edicts of the magesterium is not? Am I right on that?

Kind of.

The Scriptures are the inspired Word of God.

If by “the edicts of the Magisterium” you mean Sacred Tradition, then we say that that, too, is the Word of God.

Now, if by “the edicts of the Magisterium” you mean the Catechism or writings offered by the Vatican, then we speak of those “edicts” as being the norm for the faith, but not the inspired Word of God.

And the teaching of the Magisterium can change from one era to another?
Am I right on that also?

Rob

No, the teaching of the Magisterium can not change. The doctrines of the Church can develop and we can “fine tune” them, so to speak, but the teachings of the Church NEVER change.

 

[PRmerger]

but I object to the often quoted position by many on here that without a church infallible decision, I can have no idea of whats canon and what’s not.

This strikes me as curious, Lincs.

Surely you’re not proclaiming the “I’ll know Scripture when I see it!” paradigm?

If not, then there is no other way for you to know that Hebrews is inspired but the Letter of Barnabas is not, except through the infallible authority of the CC.

 

[submariner2]

This, too, is incorrect.

Catholicism does not extract its doctrine from the Scriptures (rather, the Scriptures reflect the teachings of the Church); the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ. Our faith comes from one source: Jesus Christ, through his apostles, to the Church.

This is a point that comes from an impoverished understanding of Catholicism. You cannot name one Catholic dogma that is contrary to any bible verse.

PR,

Obvously your second point is a matter of opinion. But regarding your first point I thought the RCC teaches that Scripture is the Word of God but does not teach the same about the Magesterium and other Catholic traditions. Is that not true?

Rob

 

[Lincoln7]

This strikes me as curious, Lincs.

Surely you’re not proclaiming the “I’ll know Scripture when I see it!” paradigm?

If not, then there is no other way for you to know that Hebrews is inspired but the Letter of Barnabas is not, except through the infallible authority of the CC.

Not just that no, I think the catholic position vastly underestimates the intrinsic qualities the scriptures possess, it’s what my Calvin quote in my signiature is about. I can’t stress enough how much I’m enjoying canon revisited. I mean in say 150 how did Ireneaus know he was reading scripture, no infallible descsion was made at this stage… do read the book

Lincs

 

[PRmerger]

I am speaking of the opinions of scholars regarding individual verses.

You are stating that most Protestant scholars and Catholic scholars are in general agreement about “individual verses”?

What is the general agreement among these scholars regarding, say, John 6: 56?

What about 1 Peter 3:21?

Of course there are differences between one christian and another depending on what verse they emphasize. This would be natural because the NT has many varied teachings in it.

Indeed. And these differences are manifold and have led to the chaos and confusion of tens of thousands of different denominations, each claiming that their interpretation of Scripture is the correct one.

That there are tens of thousands of denominations is an obscenity!

But looking at a particular verse or set of verses by a particular apostle the scholars seem to come to the same conclusion regardless of if they are protestant or Catholic.

Perhaps some. But most verses? Not so much.

For example scripture has a variety of opinions on woman pastors but when these are discussed by either Catholic or protestant scholars they generally discuss it in the same manner and view it the same. That is what I mean.

Can you share what you Scriptures you think speak to the concept of women pastors? And what “variety of opinions” are proclaimed by the Scriptures on women pastors?

Also, I think most of the differences you list are not significant differences between most churches. I agree that some make a big deal over one or the other however

Rob.

How do we discern whether something should be a “big deal” or not?

That is, what if someone reads the Scriptures and says that he thinks that Saturday should be the day of worship and not Sunday? To him, it’s a “big deal”. To you, perhaps not so much. Now what do we do with his opinion? Do we allow him to leave the flock and form his own church? Or do we say, “Hey, if you want to worship from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday, go for it!”