How should we be reading the Bible?

[Prodigal_Son1]

**Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:

Joh 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

Joh 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall shew you.**

Some Protestants say the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of scriptures. To receive an interpretation stating this, one has to read a discussion between Christ and only His Apostles and then apply that discussion to themselves. This seems, to me, to be putting one’s self into a position of authority the same as the Apostles, only without receiving an appointment, ordination, as the Apostles received from Christ.

I read the same passage and see the discussion between Christ and only the Apostles and learn how Jesus taught the Apostles that they could have confidence in teaching His truth, in His earthly absence. As a layperson, I have learned to also have confidence in the appointed men of the Church.

Anyone can go to John 13, starting at verse 1, and read through to John 18 and see no others were present, until chapter 18 when they came to arrest Christ in the garden.

In my opinion, there are stories of instruction when Christ specifically spoke only to His Apostles and there are sermons to the multitudes that everyone can apply directly to themselves.

Where does the Bible tell us that all the scriptures are speaking to each and every individual on everything written and everything written is to be applied to each and every one of us individually?

How is that really reading in context, to read a conversation exclusively between Christ and the Apostles and then apply the instructions from Christ to ourselves?

 

[BrianH]

I wonder if this is proper Catholic hermeneutics. I simply do not know.
Is it? In my experience on the boards, this is a new one.

 

[mfj]

I know in protestant circles they use the, (every one has become a priest in Christ).

Catholics do seem to have a better take on this. I went through that feeling and felt every passage was talking to me. And after some time came to the same realization you did.

Jesus wasn’t talking directly to me in those passages. Though indirectly, there are good lessons there.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I wonder if this is proper Catholic hermeneutics. I simply do not know.
Is it? In my experience on the boards, this is a new one.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

 

[BrianH]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

But is it church teaching what you wrote? Is it part of the living tradition? Because of it is, it is not presented that way very often. I simply do not recall reading anyone on here using that form of hermeneutics. Is YOUR view as stated the traditional view of scripture?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

1. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85

1. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

**

 

[BrianH]

Do you not understand my question??

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Do you not understand my question??

Yes, and I’m providing what the Catechism teaches on scriptures and interpretation. I was posting the best explanation as you posted the quote above. You’re just fast on the post there Brian.

 

[BrianH]

Yes, and I’m providing what the Catechism teaches on scriptures and interpretation.

OH!!! Strange way to do it. I was hoping you would specifically support these views which I have not read from other Catholics. I find it interesting. Its like…a Catholic Bullinger or so. But maybe I have not come across it on these boards.

one has to read a discussion between Christ and only His Apostles and then apply that discussion to themselves
Anyone can go to John 13, starting at verse 1, and read through to John 18 and see no others were present, until chapter 18 when they came to arrest Christ in the garden.
In my opinion, there are stories of instruction when Christ specifically spoke only to His Apostles and there are sermons to the multitudes that everyone can apply directly to themselves.

 

[BrianH]

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

Sure, everyone agrees with that but this is different from your theory. Do you know of any Catholic writers that support it as well?

 

[BrianH]

If I were to ever be a dispensationalist, I do not think I would be a Catholic one…I do not think you can do that quite honestly. I suppose IF I were inclined to be one I would be a Pauline one. But they are all fundamentalists…I do not think they would let me in

Of course ultras do away with Baptism, something I could never support.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sure, everyone agrees with that but this is different from your theory. Do you know of any Catholic writers that support it as well?

I don’t think it’s different.

I can try to find some for you, but it seems like common sense. Christ spoke to His Apostles and He spoke to others; multitudes and non-believers (those that rejected Him). Another example is when He gave the authority to bind and loose. He was specifically speaking to the Apostles. Certainly we cannot all apply that to ourselves, without assuming an authority upon ourselves. A better example is when He told the Apostles they had the authority to forgive and retain sins. The layperson was taught to forgive tresspasses, but we received no instructions to retain trespasses against others.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If I were to ever be a dispensationalist, I do not think I would be a Catholic one…I do not think you can do that quite honestly. I suppose IF I were inclined to be one I would be a Pauline one. But they are all fundamentalists…I do not think they would let me in

Of course ultras do away with Baptism, something I could never support.

Hmm, we may not be communicating as well as I thought. Did you see the ‘senses’ used to read the Bible?

 

[BrianH]

What is the difference between a Catholic saying that John was written to the Apostles and a dispensationalist telling me that James is only meant for Hebrew Christians from the twelve tribes (which is clearly the audience because James WROTE it was )?

Its a new theory Prodigal or one that does not get much play. Like I said, IF I were a dispensationalist, I would have to go Pauline. But United Methodists don’t do dispensationalism in any form.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What is the difference between a Catholic saying that John was written to the Apostles and a dispensationalist telling me that James is only meant for Hebrew Christians from the twelve tribes (which is clearly the audience because James WROTE it was )?

Its a new theory Prodigal or one that does not get much play. Like I said, IF I were a dispensationalist, I would have to go Pauline. But United Methodists don’t do dispensationalism in any form.

Ok, we may be able to ‘narrow’ the field here abit. I’m not saying ALL of John, or any of John, was written specifically to the Apostles. The writings are for all. John 13 to 18 relays a story of Christ speaking specifically to His Apostles, that He appointed, ordained, over His Church. The layperson can learn many things from that story, but we cannot assumed all His intructions were meant for ALL people.

The Apostles learned all they knew from what Christ spoke to them. John shares with us some of those teachings. Protestants take the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Truth guiding and teaching ALL things to mean they can interpret scriptures for themselves. Christ was teaching the Apostles how He would be the head of the body, which is His Church, in His earthly absence and work through them.

Look at John 14:26, He was speaking to those men He appointed over His Church. He was telling them the Holy Ghost would teach them all things and bring all things to their mind, whatsover He had spoken to them. This was literal and it was in the past tense of speaking when He said ‘spoken’.

**Joh 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. **

Christ formed His Church, by appointing/ordaining men. When He spoke to those men, He was speaking to His Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What is the difference between a Catholic saying that John was written to the Apostles and a dispensationalist telling me that James is only meant for Hebrew Christians from the twelve tribes (which is clearly the audience because James WROTE it was )?

Its a new theory Prodigal or one that does not get much play. Like I said, IF I were a dispensationalist, I would have to go Pauline. But United Methodists don’t do dispensationalism in any form.

But you do. There are things you take literally, if you think about it. I’m not well enough versed on the Methodist to pick them out for you.

James and Paul wrote instructions for the Church. We read those things and can, or should be able to, tell the faith and morals we can apply to ourselves, as taught by the Church, whether the writings were to Hebrews, Galatians, Corinthians, whoever. The men of authority knows what they are to teach the people, from those instructions.

You seem to think I am the only Catholic to apply this type logic to reading scriptures in context. At this point, I’d like to invite some more Catholics to share their view on what we’ve discussed this far. I don’t believe it’s as ‘new’ as you seem to think.

 

[BrianH]

Well maybe not. This form of dividing, right division is their (ultra dispensationalists) stupid catchphrase, it says that the Gospels were for the Jews and the “little flock”. The Gospels are part of the “Old Testament” because the revelation of the mystery blah blah. They confuse me.
The Pauline epistles beginning in Acts some where is for the church and the Gentiles. James was directly addressed to the Hebrew Christians and consequently not applicable to Gentile Christians. Which is true I have to admit. James does just direct his letter for some reason to Jewish Christians and not Gentiles. That is the dispensationalist mantra. And I aint one.
Like I said Prodigal, as a Gentile, I am not about to be a Catholic dispensationalist. I cannot wrap my Methodist brain around it, I do know I would have to go Pauline where Gentiles are taught according to Paul’s Gospel. At least then I have some leg to stand on.
If this is Catholic hermenaeutics, I will have to pass…respectfully speaking
I do not see it as necessary to defend Catholic hermenaeutics as I have read it. But maybe I have been reading the wrong books

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well maybe not. This form of dividing, right division is their (ultra dispensationalists) stupid catchphrase, it says that the Gospels were for the Jews and the “little flock”. The Gospels are part of the “Old Testament” because the revelation of the mystery blah blah. They confuse me.
The Pauline epistles beginning in Acts some where is for the church and the Gentiles. James was directly addressed to the Hebrew Christians and consequently not applicable to Gentile Christians. Which is true I have to admit. James does just direct his letter for some reason to Jewish Christians and not Gentiles. That is the dispensationalist mantra. And I aint one.
Like I said Prodigal, as a Gentile, I am not about to be a Catholic dispensationalist. I cannot wrap my Methodist brain around it, I do know I would have to go Pauline where Gentiles are taught according to Paul’s Gospel. At least then I have some leg to stand on.
If this is Catholic hermenaeutics, I will have to pass…respectfully speaking
I do not see it as necessary to defend Catholic hermenaeutics as I have read it. But maybe I have been reading the wrong books

The simple solution is to ask yourself how you can apply, ‘whatsoever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ to yourself. How do you apply, ‘Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained’ to yourself?

Look at the parables. Christ taught through parables at large and explained the parables to the teachers He appointed/ordained.

I’m not saying the Bible was written for one specific group of people. It most certainly was written for all, but we have to read the context of what the authors are telling us. Part of the context of a story is, who was speaking to who.

I’ll check back in tomorrow. Maybe others can help me articulate it so it’s easier to understand, or explain your confusion to me.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Brian,

I’ve shared my approach to reading scriptures in context, which you’ve commented on and appear to disagree with. Will you please share how you read the Bible?

Also, for others reading through, please feel free to add your comments.

How we read the Bible has some impact on the interpretational differences we see between each other, in my opinion.