How sufficient is the Scripture?

[michaelp]

So returning to your question, “Am I fallible or infallible?” My answer is both depending on what I’m interpreting. My bible interpretation is variably fallible, my CCC interpretation is relatively infallible in most instances and absolutely infallible in many circumstances.

I hope your classes are going well.

Is this infallible?

Teaching seems so exciting - I had an interest in teaching but never pursued it.

Why not? You are very articulate and kind. You seem to know your stuff. From what I see, you would make a great teacher.

I bet you are very good at it

Thanks Phil. Have a great night.

Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

No . . . becuase I don’t read it with Roman Catholic eyes.

Double no.

Yes.

Michael

Exactly what do Roman Catholic eyes look like? Think about what Jesus said to Peter upon this rock I will buid My Church,and reflect on the double no Well at least you acknowledge the possibility.Michael seek and you will find Off topic a second.How do you like the website?God Bless

 

[SocaliCatholic]

michaelp:

Hey all. I was wondering if Catholics believe if the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation. Help me out here.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

VI. The Necessity of Baptism

1257
The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

**1258 **
The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

**1259 **
For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

**1260 **
"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

**1261 **
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

II. Heaven

**1023 **
Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they “see him as he is,” face to face:598

By virtue of our apostolic authority, we define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints . . . and other faithful who died after receiving Christ’s holy Baptism (provided they were not in need of purification when they died, . . . or, if they then did need or will need some purification, when they have been purified after death, . . .) already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment—and this since the Ascension of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into heaven—have been, are and will be in heaven, in the heavenly Kingdom and celestial paradise with Christ, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the Passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and do see the divine essence with an intuitive vision, and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature.599

III. The Final Purification, or Purgatory

**1030 **
All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

**1129 **
The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.51 “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature52 by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

God Bless you in seeking the Truth michaelp.

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

Well, I certianly am being misread. Reader response criticism means that everyone sits around in a circle and askes, “What does this mean to you?” “That is nice, what does this mean to you?” And so on . . . I am no advocate of reader response at all. A person must ask “What does this mean?” and then ask “How does this APPLY to you?”

Educate me on how you are NOT doing this…if you can only have “moral certainty” but no definite certainty, are you not saying exactly that? If your distinction is “how does this APPLY to you,” that is NO distinction.–How it applies, according to your reasoning–is ALSO simply a fallible interpretation.

Every text only has one meaning. This meaning if found in the internt of the author. This is call authorial intent hermeneutics. This is the type of hermeneutic that I teach and strongly advocate.

AHA! Perhaps this is the crux–(I don’t really agree EVERY text has one meaning, but I do agree the Bible author had a single intent to save mankind) You are relying on your (fallible) Biblical interpretation to give you moral certainty that you are right–Catholics rely on faith in God’s promise to the teaching offices of His Church to interpret. I trust God’s Truth more than I trust my own. You appear to trust human reason.

I recognize you will say that I am wrong when I say I am not doing what I say I am and that I AM rather relying on my own interpretation of what I believe the Magesterium to be–but that is where we run smack into faith. I find more credibility to that which I have faith in than in what you have faith in–(i.e. *" This person is absolutely justified and morally obligated to act upon his certianty. To no do so, he or she would be insane. But, the fact remains, that this person is not infallibly certian.") *Isn’t that what you are saying, really?

I guess this is an impass–I am morally certain that the Magesterium is right–you are morally certain your own hermeneutics are right. Again, forgive me if I go with the one who has the added benefit of unambiguous Biblical passages that certify credibility to the Church that can trace itself to Jesus’ feet, and does NOT contradict unambiguous Biblical passages that state personal interpretation is a no-no.

Now this is an extreme illustration to let you know that absolute infallible certianty is not possible for anyone. But this does not mean that the truth of the sun raising is relative at all. It either will rise or it will not. Period.

IN GOD, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. I’m morally certain of that. Does that mean I’m insane because I believe He can choose to make the sun stand still in the sky? Are you arguing FOR or AGAINST God?

 

[Mickey]

michaelp:

(As an interesting side note, Evangelical church attendence is higher than Catholic even though we don’t say that anyone would go to hell if they missed–or perhaps because we don’t).

With all due respect Michael,

If this is indicative of what you believe about the Catholic faith, then you have just lost any credibility you may have gained on this forum. It looks like you are the one guilty of looking through **evangelical **glasses!

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

That is where faith comes in. We look to the evidence and then place our faith in that to which it points. Sometimes it takes more faith, sometimes less…

Given…we agree.

…First, you rely on your own fallible interpretation of history to determine that the Roman Catholic church is the true Church–

False–Faith is not subject to fallibility–it stands seperate from it.
One can have faith in something incorrect, but the faith itself is not fallible–the person’s judgement as to what to have faith in is fallible.

The judgement properly formed Catholic consciences decide to have faith in is (you’re gonna like this)…BIBLICAL!

First, let me make clear that the Magesterium is a body of people. Yes, the individuals that make up that body are normal, fallible, people. But when taken as a group CONCERNING FAITH AND MORALS they are INFALLABLE. (sorry for that coming across as screaming–I don’t mean it that way… )
We can have cruddy people in the teaching offices of the Church (we have far more extrodinarily holy people…) but the Church will not be affected by the few because as a body–God is ultimately in control–HE is the one who is actually speaking when the body speaks as one on faith and morals.

Biblical reference on God’s promiseI assumed you knew this, and that’s why I kept glossing over it, but…)
John 14:26–who is the “you” the H.S. will remind?
John 16:12-15–again, who is “you”?
Luke 10:16–He speaks to those he has commissioned…The Catholic Church can trace itself directly back to Jesus…
1Tim. 3:15–the church teaches how…it is the “pillar of truth”
1John2:20-27–do not fall away from the first church–that is heresy–the H.S remains in you from the first church.
Acts 15–The Church speaks with one voice and all are obliged to follow.
Matt 28:18-20–Jesus delegates all power to the apostles and He is with the commissioned ones always.
Matt. 18:17-18–the Church can decide who is following Him correctly and who is not.

Just a few…Now, don’t go telling me simply that I’m interpreting–if they do not support the authority of the Church’s interpretation of God’s message, you tell me what they are saying.

This is OK to admit. It does not mean that you are a subjectivist, relativist, or even a skeptic.

Back at’cha…

 

[teajay]

I hesitate to reply, because you haven’t responded to my most recent posts, but I will anyway.

michaelp:

I will admit that the Magisterium is of great practical advantage if it was justified. But I would not go so far as to say that when it speaks, it speaks with absolute clarity.

You may see the issue I have with that statement. Absolute clarity on all matters is not necessary. It is about the maximal certainty a person can have about doctrine essential to salvation. It is about the inherent authority that doctrine carries or claims to carry.

michaelp:

No, because you are lumping all Protestants together. You are defining Protestants as non-catholics. I fall in line with the Evangelical church which I believe finds its roots in history, carrying on the regula fidei of the apostle through the Creeds and confession of the church.

I believe that he is comparing adherents of sola scriptura with those that believe in an extra-biblical authoritative interpreter. As I understand it, protestants adhere to sola scriptura. Those that claim to adhere to that belief are “lumping” themselves together. His point isn’t that evangelicals disagree, but that adherents to sola scriptura do. Without an authoritative magisterium producing authoritative doctrine, doctrine fractures. If there is a universal truth to scripture, sola scriptura appears inefficacious at producing doctrine that recognises it. And if it is inefficacious at resolving many things central to salvation, why would God give us it?

 

[st_felicity]

teajay:

Without an authoritative magisterium producing authoritative doctrine, doctrine fractures. If there is a universal truth to scripture, sola scriptura appears inefficacious at producing doctrine that recognises it. And if it is inefficacious at resolving many things central to salvation, why would God give us it?

EXACTLY.

Is Michael arguing that Sola Scriptura isn’t so much “right” as it is the only basis that Evangelical communities of…what? thinkers?..supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation (although not clearly recognized by name per se) can come to know God within an “acceptable” margin of error due to the “fallibility” of man?

What about it Michael? You keep saying you’re being misread…please help me understand why you believe what you do. Am I way off?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Hello st_felicity. I would like to respond to your view about reader-response. First let me say that my response will have to come in fragments, both to meet the length requirements of this board but also because I have to think about how to apply the information on reader-response to what you and michaelp have been saying. (And, in between everything, I have to go work. )

• *michaelp says this:

michaelp:

Reader response criticism means that everyone sits around in a circle and askes, “What does this mean to you?” “That is nice, what does this mean to you?” And so on . . . I am no advocate of reader response at all. A person must ask “What does this mean?” and then ask “How does this APPLY to you?”

• *You say this:

st_felicity:

Educate me on how you are NOT doing this…if you can only have “moral certainty” but no definite certainty, are you not saying exactly that? If your distinction is “how does this APPLY to you,” that is NO distinction.–How it applies, according to your reasoning–is ALSO simply a fallible interpretation.

I agree, st_felicity, that the question ‘What does this mean to you’ and the question ‘How does this APPLY to you’ are both reader-response questions. Michaelp is, in my opinion, attempting to make a distinction where none exists.

Michaelp has said “I am no advocate of reader-response at all.” I think I remember, st-felicity, that you took undergrad litcrit. So, before responding to michaelp’s assertion, perhaps it would be a good idea for us to tighten up our mutual understandings of what reader-response actually is? And then examine the question of whether michaelp’s claims are reader-response or not?

I’ll start. Here is a link to a website describing reader-response criticism.

brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/rr.html

Categories of reader-response are as follows:

Impressionistic view
Psychoanalytic view
Hermeneutic view
Phenomenological hermeneutic view
Structuralist view
Political or ideological view
Post-structuralist view

Having summarized this material, I need to step away from it for a bit before I come back to this discussion. (Basically I need some time to think before proceeding. I also need to go to work soon.) Catch ya later.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

These are summaries only. For the full treatment, please go to this link or, if you have another link, that would be welcome. brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/rr.html

Reader-response categories

---

****a) Impressionistic view: The reader experiences a gut-level response to a text. This response is influenced by the reader’s personality type and past experiences. This kind of criticism can be seen to be self-expressive, sometimes to the extent of producing a secondary text distinct from the primary one. This approach very easily descends to the level of affective fallacy.

b) Psychoanalytic view: The reader experiences an unconscious response to the text. Examination of this response produces a conscious enrichment of self-knowledge (transformative). This could devolve into impressionist response except for the influence of psychoanalytic methodology.

c) Hermeneutic view: This view speaks of the merging of horizons: the horizon of the reader and the horizon of the text (when it was written). Each brings to the encounter distinct histories and results in an event greater than the sum of the two histories in question. This event is the synthesis of ‘self’ and ‘other.’ This synthesis produces a sense of identification at the same time as it produces a sense of alienation.

Continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

(I don’t know why the window is making half this post bold and italic. I can’t correct it, so please be patient.)

d) Phenomenological hermeneutics view: This is involved. I will try to simplify for purposes of preserving the train of thought, but you might want to give this webpage a read first: brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/ph.html

–Reader and author share reality (‘being’) by means of common signs. Our ‘being’ is inseparable from our symbolic world. W**e ‘are’ language. We are conscious of ourselves; we know ourselves symbolically and self-reflexively. “Language speaks man.” (Heidegger) We do not ‘use’ symbols; symbols form our being. **

** **–However there is a meaning to ‘being’ which is greater than the symbol-formation of that being. Phenomenology calls that excess meaning *noema. Noema is shaped by symbol-formation but is not limited by it. (Hence the need in language for metaphor, image, narrative, nuance, polysemy.) *

*** ***–Intentionality is at the heart of knowing; that is, our preparedness for knowing (our fore-understanding) shapes what we end up knowing. (The danger of this approach is the intentional fallacy: that something necessarily means what it was intended to mean. Another danger of this approach is circular reasoning: that we know what we knew before and that we know that we know it because we knew it before.) Moreover, by reading, we revise our fore-understanding.

*** –“Understanding the text is not an end in itself” (Ricoeur) The formation of self is contemporaneous with the formation of meaning. (transformative and informative attributes of knowledge)“*

** **“Long before we understand ourselves through the process of self-examination, we understand ourselves in a self-evident way in the family, society and state in which we live. The focus of subjectivity is a distorting mirror. The self-awareness of the individual is only a flickering in the closed circuits of historical life. That is why the prejudices of the individual, far more than his judgments, constitute the historical reality of his being.” (Gadamer)

** **“The idea of the original reader [and hence of a recoverable historical meaning] is full of unexamined idealization." (Gadamer)

–Every reading is only an interpretation. There is no ideal meaning, only meaning which the reader imputes from his or her historical context.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

e) Structuralist view: Meaning depends on the competence of the reader in decoding the structures and practices of the text. This structures and practices may (or may not) operate implicitly. The competent reader, however, makes them explicit.

f) Political or ideological view: The competent reader demystifies the ideologies of the text. This happens within the frame of the reader’s own ideologies which are boundaried from the ideologies of the text.

g) Post-structuralist view: Meaning is indeterminate, is not ‘in’ the text but in the play of language and the nuances of conventions in which the reader is immersed: hence the reader constructs a text as she participates in this play, driven by the instabilities and meaning potentials of the semantic and rhetorical aspects of the text. Key concept: participatory knowledge.

 

[st_felicity]

Ani Ibi:

So, before responding to michaelp’s assertion, perhaps it would be a good idea for us to tighten up our mutual understandings of what reader-response actually is? And then examine the question of whether michaelp’s claims are reader-response or not?

I’ll start. Here is a link to a website describing reader-response criticism.

brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/rr.html

Categories of reader-response are as follows:

Impressionistic view
Psychoanalytic view
Hermeneutic view
Phenomenological hermeneutic view
Structuralist view
Political or ideological view
Post-structuralist view

Having summarized this material, I need to step away from it for a bit before I come back to this discussion. (Basically I need some time to think before proceeding. I also need to go to work soon.) Catch ya later.

Wow… smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_5_132.gif%between%I think my head just exploded!

Really, Ali–great info and helps me remember some of the stuff from my undergrad courses. I do think it’s helpful to make sure we’re all on the same page, but I certainly don’t want to hijack and turn this into Literary Criticism 101. The way we read that most important text is very much a portion of the question at hand, but to delve too deeply into it will sacrifice the broader issue. * (The truth is…I’m lazy…I don’t want to get involved in a discussion that will require me to study too hard on a topic that is perhaps important to understanding the positions of posters, but really only glances the actual issue at hand).*

Between what I think I know, and the resources you provided, I think I have passing acquaintence enough to not sound like a complete idiot (I hope ). But to try and speak above what I am sure I know, will most definitely make me look like an idiot!

Thank-you, though…I’m sure I’ll be referencing your summary many times.:bowdown2:

 

[Philthy]

Philthy:

It just isn’t true and I believe these examples will refute your logic above. Lets take some BASIC issues that Protestants can’t agree on and use the terms that you can find in, say, the CCC and see if there is any “interpretation” required. Ready?

MichaelP:

No, because you are lumping all Protestants together. You are defining Protestants as non-catholics. I fall in line with the Evangelical church which I believe finds its roots in history, carrying on the regula fidei of the apostle through the Creeds and confession of the church.

You seem to have taken my post out of the context of this thread with your response. Let me explain: This thread is an attempt to answer the question “How sufficient is the Scripture?” Protestantism is the branch of Christianity which has 2 main precepts: Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, the latter of which is essentially the topic of this thread. Basically, all protestants hold that the Scripture is fully sufficient. Part of my point in posting the examples I did was to demonstrate how the branch of Christianity which relies on Scripture alone actually fails to unify theologically. This is a very good indication that although Scripture may be materially sufficient, it is not formally sufficient. The other (actually primary)point of my post was to compare the CLARITY of the Magisterium in declaring it’s position relative to the clarity of the Bible in communicating it’s message. I have demonstrated that the CCC speaks in clear, AFFIRMATIVE language which obviates the “fallibile” interpretations which are characteristic of the DESCRIPTIVE terminology of Scripture. OK?
You then attempt to refute my argument by claiming that it is erroneous of me to demonstrate the doctrinal variability of Protestants and apply it to Evangelicals. I don’t think so for two reasons:
Firstly, remember that the context is the discussion of the clarity of Scripture. You are a Protestant. You follow the same guidelines for developing theology as do other Protestants - namely by meticulous, reverent and well-intentioned interpretation of Scripture. The only thing that separates you significantly from the rest of Protestantism is that your interpretations align with Evangelicals…for now. So there is nothing wrong with my comparing one branch of interpretive biblical theology to another branch of interpretive biblical theology, recognizing the disparity and saying, “If the bible is clear and sufficient why do these disparities exist between genuine seekers of truth?”.
Secondly,it’s also true that we could substitute in “Evangelical” for the term “Protestant” in my quote above and still find plenty of dissent and thereby prove my point. I’ve read and studied Wayne Grudems Systematic Theology cover to cover. If you really want me too I’ll go through each chapter and point out how many times he says, “There is considerable disagreement even among Evangelicals on this point…” I know the Lords Supper and Baptism are two examples fresh in my mind.
I’ll address specific issues of disagreement in another post…

Thank you for the kind words,

Phil

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:

You seem to have taken my post out of the context of this thread with your response. Let me explain: This thread is an attempt to answer the question “How sufficient is the Scripture?” Protestantism is the branch of Christianity which has 2 main precepts: Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, the latter of which is essentially the topic of this thread. Basically, all protestants hold that the Scripture is fully sufficient. Part of my point in posting the examples I did was to demonstrate how the branch of Christianity which relies on Scripture alone actually fails to unify theologically. This is a very good indication that although Scripture may be materially sufficient, it is not formally sufficient. The other (actually primary)point of my post was to compare the CLARITY of the Magisterium in declaring it’s position relative to the clarity of the Bible in communicating it’s message. I have demonstrated that the CCC speaks in clear, AFFIRMATIVE language which obviates the “fallibile” interpretations which are characteristic of the DESCRIPTIVE terminology of Scripture. OK?
You then attempt to refute my argument by claiming that it is erroneous of me to demonstrate the doctrinal variability of Protestants and apply it to Evangelicals. I don’t think so for two reasons:
Firstly, remember that the context is the discussion of the clarity of Scripture. You are a Protestant. You follow the same guidelines for developing theology as do other Protestants - namely by meticulous, reverent and well-intentioned interpretation of Scripture. The only thing that separates you significantly from the rest of Protestantism is that your interpretations align with Evangelicals…for now. So there is nothing wrong with my comparing one branch of interpretive biblical theology to another branch of interpretive biblical theology, recognizing the disparity and saying, “If the bible is clear and sufficient why do these disparities exist between genuine seekers of truth?”.
Secondly,it’s also true that we could substitute in “Evangelical” for the term “Protestant” in my quote above and still find plenty of dissent and thereby prove my point. I’ve read and studied Wayne Grudems Systematic Theology cover to cover. If you really want me too I’ll go through each chapter and point out how many times he says, “There is considerable disagreement even among Evangelicals on this point…” I know the Lords Supper and Baptism are two examples fresh in my mind.
I’ll address specific issues of disagreement in another post…

Thank you for the kind words,

Phil

This is fine Phil, so long as you don’t play the double standard game.

If you want to lump Evangelicals together with all those who claim sola Scriptura, then, by principle I can lump you together with all those who have Scripture plus some Magisterial authority.

Here is a list of those who take Scripture plus some outside authority to interpret Scripture:

1. Roman Catholics (Scripture plus infallible authority of Pope (apostolic succeesor)
2. Charismatics (Scripture plus infallible authority of apostles today)
3. Jehovah’s Witness (Scripture plus infallible Watchtower authorities)
4. Mormons (Scripture plus infallible Apostles)

Now, how much agreement is there among those who follow “your tradition of Scripture plus something else?” Shall I list them?

Of course I would not do this, but it is the same thing as what you are doing. You cannot lump all people together who claim to follow the Scripture alone.

Have a good night my friend.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Educate me on how you are NOT doing this…if you can only have “moral certainty” but no definite certainty, are you not saying exactly that? If your distinction is “how does this APPLY to you,” that is NO distinction.–How it applies, according to your reasoning–is ALSO simply a fallible interpretation.

It is the difference between soft-skepticism (which I adhere to) and relativism (where there is no objective truth). I believe that their is objective truth. It just sometimes takes some hard word to discover this truth. Sometimes it is self evident like in mathmatics and analytical statements of fact (a triangle has three sides). Sometimes the level of certianty is beyond any reasonable doubt (like that Christ rose from the grave). Sometimes it is more difficult (like what does “day” mean in Gen 1). Are you with me??? If so, where have I gone wrong?

Some things require more faith than others because the evidence it lacking. This is ok.

Since we are not omniscient, we cannot know infallibly as God knows. But the spirit can give us assurance of many things (Rom. 8).

We don’t have to have infallible assurance on anything, since this is not possible to have based on evidences alone. We have to finally take a step of faith. This faith, however, need not be blind faith (which is faith based on no evidence whatsoever–i.e. stupidity).

Like in any court system. Even when the case is murder and the possibility is the death penalty, all the court can ask for is certianty beyond a reasonable doubt–not any doubt whatsoever.

Having said all of this, I believe that you seek such infallible certianty through your Magisterium, which is not possible since you are fallible.

Now you must ultimately rely upon your own fallible opinion. Truth is absolute, our knowledge of it is not. I am persuaded that there is no evidence that your Magisterium should be looked at as an infallible source. For me to believe in them would be to take a hopeful blind leap into the dark, since there is no biblical or historical evidence for infallibility in my opinion.

Cont . . .

 

[michaelp]

AHA! Perhaps this is the crux–(I don’t really agree EVERY text has one meaning, but I do agree the Bible author had a single intent to save mankind)

I don’t really mean that every text has only one meaning, but that the meaning of the author is the meaning of the text (authorial intent). The principle of the law of double reference often comes into play in Scriptures such as Isa 7.

Isaiah 7:14 For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.

This passage has a double reference. One, to the young women standing by Isaiah and two, to Mary’s virgin birth.

But, the point is that I cannot read into this passage and say, “Hey, I have been praying whether or not I should have a child and God must have given me this passage to say that I should.” This is reader response hermeneutics.

You are relying on your (fallible) Biblical interpretation to give you moral certainty that you are right–Catholics rely on faith in God’s promise to the teaching offices of His Church to interpret. I trust God’s Truth more than I trust my own. You appear to trust human reason.

Why do you trust them??? How do you know for certian that they are leading you down the right path???

I recognize you will say that I am wrong when I say I am not doing what I say I am and that I AM rather relying on my own interpretation of what I believe the Magesterium to be–but that is where we run smack into faith. I find more credibility to that which I have faith in than in what you have faith in–(i.e. *" This person is absolutely justified and morally obligated to act upon his certianty. To no do so, he or she would be insane. But, the fact remains, that this person is not infallibly certian.") *Isn’t that what you are saying, really?

I can accept this. We, end then end, rely upon our own fallible opinion (albeit based upon the evidence one way or the other), in whom we trust.

Once you hand things over to the Magisterium, you rest in their interpretation (to be honest, this is like the Mormons, Charismatics, and JWs and their external infallible authority).

I rely upon many different areas such as my interpretation of infallible Scripture, the authority of the regula fidei (tradition), my experience, rational, conscience, and finally the guidence of the Holy Spirit.

I guess this is an impass–I am morally certain that the Magesterium is right–you are morally certain your own hermeneutics are right.

We may be, but I certianly appreciate this statement. I think that you have stated it perfectly. Thanks.

Again, forgive me if I go with the one who has the added benefit of unambiguous Biblical passages that certify credibility to the Church that can trace itself to Jesus’ feet, and does NOT contradict unambiguous Biblical passages that state personal interpretation is a no-no.

You are forgiven.

I sure do continue to enjoy this.

Michael

PS: I did not understand this one.

IN GOD, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. I’m morally certain of that. Does that mean I’m insane because I believe He can choose to make the sun stand still in the sky? Are you arguing FOR or AGAINST God?

 

[michaelp]

michaelp:

This is fine Phil, so long as you don’t play the double standard game.

If you want to lump Evangelicals together with all those who claim sola Scriptura, then, by principle I can lump you together with all those who have Scripture plus some infallible Magisterial authority.

Here is a list of those who take Scripture plus some infallible outside authority to interpret Scripture:

1. Roman Catholics (Scripture plus infallible authority of Pope (apostolic succeesor)
2. Charismatics (Scripture plus infallible authority of apostles today)
3. Jehovah’s Witness (Scripture plus infallible Watchtower authorities)
4. Mormons (Scripture plus infallible Apostles)

Now, how much agreement is there among those who follow “your tradition of Scripture plus something else?” Shall I list them?

Of course I would not do this, but it is the same thing as what you are doing. You cannot lump all people together who claim to follow the Scripture alone.

Have a good night my friend.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

I hesitate to reply, because you haven’t responded to my most recent posts, but I will anyway.

I am very sorry tea, I just get behind. I did not mean to leave you out.

You may see the issue I have with that statement. Absolute clarity on all matters is not necessary. It is about the maximal certainty a person can have about doctrine essential to salvation. It is about the inherent authority that doctrine carries or claims to carry.

I can hang with that. Good statement.

I believe that he is comparing adherents of sola scriptura with those that believe in an extra-biblical authoritative interpreter. As I understand it, protestants adhere to sola scriptura. Those that claim to adhere to that belief are “lumping” themselves together. His point isn’t that evangelicals disagree, but that adherents to sola scriptura do. Without an authoritative magisterium producing authoritative doctrine, doctrine fractures. If there is a universal truth to scripture, sola scriptura appears inefficacious at producing doctrine that recognises it. And if it is inefficacious at resolving many things central to salvation, why would God give us it?

But, as I said to phil tea, then I can lump you together with all those who have Scripture plus an infallible outside authority.

And I don’t think that it is inefficacious. I think all those who follow by a normal hermeneutic, without our presuppositions being our guide, are united in the essentials. I meet with evangelicals all the time, all over the world, and we find great fellowship under the common confession of our faith and the five solas.

Michael

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

Wow… smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_5_132.gifI think my head just exploded!..I do think it’s helpful to make sure we’re all on the same page, but I certainly don’t want to hijack and turn this into Literary Criticism 101.

Yes, quite aware of the risk of sidetracking this discussion. In fact was wondering whether a new thread on interpretation was in order.

Anyway with the reader-response stuff posted, the basics are out of the way. Now (with me being lazy too) I can slothfully slide back into the general discussion. I do think it is important to be confident about terms, when all is said and done. It is easy to toss in a term here, another term there, and never be sure about what is meant.

(The truth is…I’m lazy…I don’t want to get involved in a discussion that will require me to study too hard on a topic that is perhaps important to understanding the positions of posters, but really only glances the actual issue at hand).

D-oh! You think the reader-response stuff makes your head explode. Try reading the author-intent hermeneutics!:banghead: :whacky:

In any case, I’ve just come back from work, have some more work to do, am looking forward to a lot more work tomorrow, so probably won’t be able to apologize for scriptural insufficiency until some time in the weekend.