Mary - sinner - Romans 3?

[Marybeloved]

Mary, … you are perhaps carried away a little. What I said was this: "…are seen as an illigitimate break away momement by most …".

Yes, Gerhard, And this is exactly the false claim that I called you out on. Who are these “most” who see the Church as an illegitimate break-away? For all I’ve seen in most materials, religious and non-religious- The view of “most” is that the Catholic Church is the original Christian Church- Some may believe she “changed” along the way and adopted false beliefs, but that she’s a break-away? Please provide proof from your brave and novel assertion above (in bold).

Peace!

 

[PRmerger]

Hey, Joe

The bible says that we are saved by grace through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Is there something that the tradition of the Catholic church teaches more than this that is needed for our salvation and if so what is it? And if not why bother with it?

The Catholic Church proclaims that we are saved by grace through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

But here is also what the Catholic Church proclaims regarding how we are saved:

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By his Cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)

 

[Marybeloved]

Hey, Joe

The bible says that we are saved by grace through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Is there something that the tradition of the Catholic church teaches more than this that is needed for our salvation and if so what is it? And if not why bother with it?

**-**Obeying Jesus by following what he himself established rather than the Protestant Reformers of the 16th Century or anyone else for that matter, is enough reason “to bother with” anything at all.
**-**Receiving Jesus Christ himself in the flesh into your body, the source of grace himself, is enough reason “to bother with” anything at all.
**-**Accessing all the channels of his grace that he established (in both the Bible and sacred tradition) for your benefit, found in the Church, is enough reason “to bother with” anything at all.
**-**Placing yourself in the protection of solid teaching protected by God the Holy Spirit from error and false interpretations against the winds of the times, is good enough reason “to bother with” anything at all.

Peace!

 

[pablope]

Not entirely accurate. The above statement boils down to a profound misunderstanding by many non-Catholics. HOW did God do it? God uses humans as instruments for many of his divine purposes. In the case of the Bible he used Catholic bishops to give us a canonized Bible.

Therefore you do accept Sacred Tradition because it is that Apostolic Tradition which was finally canonized into a collection of books. The canonized Christian Bible did not supersede Apostolic Tradition,but yet vice versa.

Thank you. You are suggesting that a once-off fulfilling of a Holy Spirit initiative like canonizing the Bible and representing the Holy Spirit on earth for all other things following is the same thing. It is not.

And can you kindly explain why it is not? Isn’t it that the catholic bishops who canonized the
Bible were acting of behalf of the HS…so it follows they represented the HS.

God can use a donkey to admonish to a man. That does not suggest that all donkey from that point onwards have the office of admonishing men. Thats a crazy thought. How can you believe it?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

**-**Obeying Jesus by following what he himself established rather than the Protestant Reformers of the 16th Century or anyone else for that matter, is enough reason “to bother with” anything at all.
**-**Receiving Jesus Christ himself in the flesh into your body, the source of grace himself, is enough reason “to bother with” anything at all.
**-**Accessing all the channels of his grace that he established (in both the Bible and sacred tradition) for your benefit, found in the Church, is enough reason “to bother with” anything at all.
**-**Placing yourself in the protection of solid teaching protected by God the Holy Spirit from error and false interpretations against the winds of the times, is good enough reason “to bother with” anything at all.

Peace!

Hey Mary

The bible says that we are saved by grace through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Is there something that the tradition of the Catholic church teaches more than this that is needed for our salvation and if so what is it? And if not why bother with it?

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Hey Mary

The bible says that we are saved by grace through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Is there something that the tradition of the Catholic church teaches more than this that is needed for our salvation and if so what is it? And if not why bother with it?

Good question, start here

 

[Marybeloved]

Hey Mary

The bible says that we are saved by grace through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Is there something that the tradition of the Catholic church teaches more than this that is needed for our salvation and if so what is it? And if not why bother with it?

Hello, Richard,

The sacred Tradition teaches us a lot- It teaches, for example, what grace actually is, so that people avoid the false notions that “believing” in Jesus alone and answering an alter call is what the Bible means by "Grace through faith in the atonement"- rather than the complete perfection of the person by grace through faith in the atonement, which is actually the true salvation that is taught. Forgot to add also that it’s the ST that teaches exactly what it means in our personal daily life to co-operate with grace, to deny ourselves and to take up our cross- all necessary for our perfection.

The Bible also says you must eat Jesus Christ, to be saved; The Bible also teaches that you must love, feed the hungry, tend the sick, forgive those who wronged you, exercise mercy etc to be saved or to avoid hearing the words “Depart from me, I know you not” from Jesus on the last day. It says we must endure to the end and must be perfect. You can’t do this without the grace to be perfected e.g. like Mother Teresa and other Catholic saints- You access them in the Church- The Body and Blood of Jesus, Confession and penance, Anointing of the sick-all through the prayer of the Church made in faith to God in Christ, The Church that has been given the power of Christ through the leadership (Before ascension) to act in his person and exercise his very own power for you. So to get to Heaven, perfect and complete, you need the Church or you’ll find yourself taking a long long “detour” on your way to heaven that is anything but pleasant, my friend.

Peace!

 

[Marybeloved]

Good question, start here

Perfect Answer! Go right to the teaching to see the immense treasures of the church for yourself!

 

[joe370]

Hey Richard…

Richard Kastner;8486523]Hey, Joe

The bible says that we are saved by grace through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Is there something that the tradition of the Catholic church teaches more than this that is needed for our salvation and if so what is it? And if not why bother with it?

No. :thumbsup:I was merely stating that sola scriptura is a man-made tradition formed by the protestant reformers in the 16th century. I always found it rather perplexing that sola scriptura advocates accuse the CC of adding man-made tradition to the "pure word of God’ and then turn around and embrace a man-made tradition that has sadly really divided the church.

And if not why bother with it.

Well, using that same line of reasoning I guess we could say, why even bother with the sola scriptura or the bible, which is a product of tradition, or church affiliation, or commemorating Christmas and Easter, if all that matters is:

We are saved by grace through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

 

[gerhardc]

With all due respect, gerhard, I’ve read through this post carefully twice, and I still cannot find the answer to your question: “do you know why I believe the Bible is the word of God and why nothing else deserves that title?”

But the above still gives us no insight as to why you believe the Bible to be the word of God.

The only thing I can surmise, from the comment below, is that you believe the Bible to be the word of God because it causes–as the Mormons like to say–a type of “burning in your bosom” when you read it? Is that a correct assessment of why you believe the Bible is the word of God?

Incidentally, you stated: “the Bible is the word of God and why nothing else deserves that title”…but I am almost certain that you believe* Jesus *is the Word of God. Is that right?

I’ll try once more: The Bible is the word of God because:

1. having been raised in a church-going family, been “baptised”, singing about Jesus and praying to Him - yet not following Him in faith - there was no difference for me between living an ungodly life and living a godly life, except that I felt a little guilty when I had been a little ‘naughty’.
2. then, one day, when I least expected it and when I certainly did not want it, someone preached a sermon from the Bible which convinced me that Jesus was really the Son of God and that He really came so that I, a Gentile, may know Him. What happened to me at that moment was something I had been oblivious to previously. The word of God pierced right into my heart. Only it can do that: Hebrews 4:7 - “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”
3. I got to truly repent that day (both of my efforts to impress God with my sense of good behaviour as well as my ignorance of Him as well as my disobedience to Him). I also got to believe in my heart that Jesus is Lord. This I confessed with my mouth openly and joyously. At that moment I gave my *will *over to Jesus and He became my Lord. Some time later I was baptised in a swimming pool - something I would never have done previously. Even later did I learn that the aforementioned things were necessary for me to receive a new spirit and be justified before God (refer John 3:3, Romans 10:9-10). The thing that made the difference was what Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 2:13: “These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”
4. Amazingly, before all these things happened I had resisted the idea of being “born again”, which, to me, had been charismatic brainwash and manipulation. I vehemently debated with some of my class mates the legitimacy of the Bible as the only source of truth - “the word of God”. I was into philosophy and the wisdom of this world. But later I learnt that what had happened to me in church that day was Romans 10:17. I had heard the word being preached and faith *came *to me.
5. As I repented, believed and confessed, … from that moment I received a new spirit - something I had previously believed was just make-belief propaganda. Yet, the Bible was right: “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17).
6. Without it having been anything I had previously been interested in I developed a thirst for the Bible. Again, only later did I learn about 1 Peter 2:2 - “as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby”
7. Then, my appetite for “fun” started to change. At one point, as I was about to do something silly - like before - I felt a strange disgust in me.
8. I had become a changed man - my tastes in entertainment, the way I liked to spend time, etc. Several things about me changed. Still, things are changing within me.
9. what is happening to me is what is written in Ephesians 5:25-27: “just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.”. I am being washed by the word.

I am a long way off from being truly sanctified, but looking back at only a few years since that wonderfully blessed day when I received a new spirit, I come to realise that none of this would have happened to me if the Bible had not been part of my story. For me the Bible, indeed, is powerful. For me the proof is in the life it changed. Nothing else can do that. It is the word of God. How was I so foolish to ever have denied it?

If the words written in the Bible is not the word of God then every other religious effort or writing is even less so. I testify that it is the word of God for the good that it has done within me without me trying. If that is not good enough for you, I am okay with that. If you want to knit-pick from technical analysis and miss the Message sent to mankind, then I regret that but that will be everyone’s choice. I no longer rely on my intellect, which was an obstacle to knowing Christ. And I do not rely on the wisdom of my education as I hope to say:

“But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith” (Philipians 3:7-9)

 

[gerhardc]

Sola scriptura is a 16th century man made tradition. Ironically, protestants, (like used to do as a former protestant) - reject tradition, except that one… Makes no sense to me…

Joe, Sola Scripture is not true for me because someone suggested it centuries ago. It is true for me because I am experiencing it.

 

[gerhardc]

gerhardc;8485652:

Thank you. You are suggesting that a once-off fulfilling of a Holy Spirit initiative like canonizing the Bible and representing the Holy Spirit on earth for all other things following is the same thing. It is not.

And can you kindly explain why it is not? Isn’t it that the catholic bishops who canonized the
Bible were acting of behalf of the HS…so it follows they represented the HS.

Because God can, Gerhard! So you think God cannot do it continously if He wanted to? Why?

Or is it because it is difficult for you to accept the fact that Catholic Bishops canonized the Bible?

I am making the point that people here think that the fact that God used Catholic men to canonize the Bible ***guarantees ***that the said Catholic men and their successors have been guaranteed to have received God’s irrevocable authority and insight in interpretation on earth. Whilst God can certainly do it if He really wanted to, it by no means whatsoever is guaranteed that this is in fact what He did. That is pure presumption, if not self-deception, I am sorry to say. I mean no disrespect. Because, if that rationale holds true then every creature ***and ***their successors ever used by God can make a claim for God’s authority on earth, even donkeys as in the case of Balaam. Because no creature can claim that, nor can the Catholic men in question. Yet, if indeed God had given His authority to the said Catholic men so that Scripture could be interpreted by them on His behalf, which I know is not true, then why would He send the Holy Spirit as Helper to all believers who have received Him? “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.” (John 15:26)

You say it is arrogant for me to **deny **that God gave an irrevocable authority to the RCC. I say it is arrogant of you to affirm it.

Some here say that the Bible is not God’s (only) authority, nor is the Spirit and that church officials are. Yet, these very same people claim the doctrine of succession on a Bible verse of which the meaning has been disputed for a long long time. It makes little sense.

 

[gerhardc]

Gerhard, No, Gerhard. What is already amazing is how you can believe that the donkey ever spoke for God in the first place- And you apparently do. So let’s quit the “Oh how shocking!” attitude. It is simply not becoming (and actually quite hypocritical) of a person who believes that God from then on speaks to all the other donkeys in the same way, forever!:shrug:And this also, despite the fact that all these other donkeys who claim to be used by God the same way couldn’t disagree more on what God is actually saying to save their lives! I’d say that’s the very definition of a "crazy" thought- It literally requires you to perform intellectual somersaults and gymnastics that if translated into the physical world, puts any Olympian to shame. What did Einstein say was crazy?..Doing the same thing…expecting different results…for 500 years! After 40,000 + divisions!.. Yeah, I think we can see what is a really crazy belief very well.

Secondly, you have not yet told us how you know that the donkey spoke for God that once but not all the other times it claimed to speak for him, in the same tone and the exact same way as it spoke when it spoke for him that one time that you accept.

I’ve asked you many questions now that you refuse to answer:

-You claimed you can believe the unbelievable claims of our Lord because of his fruit, but not the Church because of bad fruit- I asked you to show me Christ’s fruit apart from the Church he started- you haven’t.
-You tried to use the abuse scandals to prove that the Church is not what she claims, I gave you very few examples of unparalleled good fruit of the Church- You dismissed them by pretending to use a higher standard of goodness/excellence for judging fruit- I asked you to show me a better example of “good fruit” than Catholic Saints, in particular one you must already know about, called Mother Teresa- You haven’t.
-The above question still remains- Where did God say he was using the church only that once? By what authority do you accept that one decision and not others of the same authority? By your “bible only” beliefs- This belief is unscriptural and false!
-Up till now, you’re yet to show us the doctrine of sola-scriptura in scripture! How can any one say “I believe in only the bible” and yet fail to show “in only the bible” that that belief is true or founded? By your “Bible only” standard, the belief in only the Bible is itself unscriptural and false!

Now,** please answer the questions** that have been put to you.

Peace!

Hi Mary, can you have a look at my last three posts (#556 - 558) in response to other questions and see what is still unclear? Thanks.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Stick with the topic please

 

[PRmerger]

I’ll try once more: The Bible is the word of God because:

1. having been raised in a church-going family, been “baptised”, singing about Jesus and praying to Him - yet not following Him in faith - there was no difference for me between living an ungodly life and living a godly life, except that I felt a little guilty when I had been a little ‘naughty’.
2. then, one day, when I least expected it and when I certainly did not want it, someone preached a sermon from the Bible which convinced me that Jesus was really the Son of God and that He really came so that I, a Gentile, may know Him. What happened to me at that moment was something I had been oblivious to previously. The word of God pierced right into my heart. Only it can do that: Hebrews 4:7 - “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”
3. I got to truly repent that day (both of my efforts to impress God with my sense of good behaviour as well as my ignorance of Him as well as my disobedience to Him). I also got to believe in my heart that Jesus is Lord. This I confessed with my mouth openly and joyously. At that moment I gave my *will *over to Jesus and He became my Lord. Some time later I was baptised in a swimming pool - something I would never have done previously. Even later did I learn that the aforementioned things were necessary for me to receive a new spirit and be justified before God (refer John 3:3, Romans 10:9-10). The thing that made the difference was what Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 2:13: “These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”
4. Amazingly, before all these things happened I had resisted the idea of being “born again”, which, to me, had been charismatic brainwash and manipulation. I vehemently debated with some of my class mates the legitimacy of the Bible as the only source of truth - “the word of God”. I was into philosophy and the wisdom of this world. But later I learnt that what had happened to me in church that day was Romans 10:17. I had heard the word being preached and faith *came *to me.
5. As I repented, believed and confessed, … from that moment I received a new spirit - something I had previously believed was just make-belief propaganda. Yet, the Bible was right: “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17).
6. Without it having been anything I had previously been interested in I developed a thirst for the Bible. Again, only later did I learn about 1 Peter 2:2 - “as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby”
7. Then, my appetite for “fun” started to change. At one point, as I was about to do something silly - like before - I felt a strange disgust in me.
8. I had become a changed man - my tastes in entertainment, the way I liked to spend time, etc. Several things about me changed. Still, things are changing within me.
9. what is happening to me is what is written in Ephesians 5:25-27: “just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.”. I am being washed by the word.

I am a long way off from being truly sanctified, but looking back at only a few years since that wonderfully blessed day when I received a new spirit, I come to realise that none of this would have happened to me if the Bible had not been part of my story. For me the Bible, indeed, is powerful. For me the proof is in the life it changed. Nothing else can do that. It is the word of God. How was I so foolish to ever have denied it?

If the words written in the Bible is not the word of God then every other religious effort or writing is even less so. I testify that it is the word of God for the good that it has done within me without me trying. If that is not good enough for you, I am okay with that. If you want to knit-pick from technical analysis and miss the Message sent to mankind, then I regret that but that will be everyone’s choice. I no longer rely on my intellect, which was an obstacle to knowing Christ. And I do not rely on the wisdom of my education as I hope to say:

“But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith” (Philipians 3:7-9)

As we have been urged to remain on topic, I have started a new thread here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8487281#post8487281

addressing your post above.

Please join me, all!

 

[Marybeloved]

Hi Mary, can you have a look at my last three posts (#556 - 558) in response to other questions and see what is still unclear? Thanks.

I’ve answered this post in the thread started by PRmerger- See you there Gerhard!

 

[Good_Fella]

Personally, I try always to keep in mind that I could be wrong.

Including Mary in the Romans 3 passage is sensible, because it’s the simplest interpretation. I’ve been taught that, when trying to understand Scripture, you should look at what’s simplest and most straight-forward first. So, when Romans 3 v23 says ‘all have sinned’, I would say it means ‘all’, as in everyone (excluding Jesus, because we know from elsewhere that He was without sin). The reason I wouldn’t exclude Mary from that is because I don’t see anything elsewhere in Scripture that would lead me to believe she is excluded. You use Scripture to interprete Scripture, so any conclusions have to be compatible with the whole of the Bible. If Mary was totally without sin, I would expect that to be mentioned somewhere in the Bible, but as far as I know, it is not. I am willing to be corrected, of course, so feel free.

The Greek word for “all” is pantes, implying there can be exceptions to the rule: infants and mentally disabled people who cannot be held accountable for their actions. St. Paul is referring to people in general who have contracted the stain of original sin and thereby are inclined to sin by a wounded human nature. The apostle does not have every single human being in mind with regard to personal sins despite the stain of original sin. And since he uses this Greek word in reference to those who have fallen short of the glory of God, there can also be an exception to the rule with regard to original sin. In his First Letter to the Corinthians (15:22) St. Paul writes that “in Adam all die” and “in Christ all shall be made alive”. Again we have the word pantes referring to the general population. Indeed, Scripture reveals that Enoch and Elijah were spared death by being translated to a terrestial paradise beyond this life. The gates of heaven were closed until Christ’s death and resurrection. Now in heaven they await the redemption of their bodies on the last day. Nor will everyone partake in Christ’s glory in his heavenly kingdom upon the resurrection of the just when our Lord returns. By “all”, St. Paul does not mean every single person who has ever lived. Exceptions can be made.

Speaking of Mary his mother, Jesus said to the woman in the crowd: “Rather blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it” (Lk 1:28). As St. Paul intended to tell the Romans, every human being is implicated in the sin of Adam, although not personally culpable of his sin, and subject to the law of sin and death. Thus Mary was also implicated in Adam’s transgression at the point she was first conceived in her mother’s womb. And so God intervened by preserving her free from the stain of original sin in view of the merits of her divine Son. Since Mary did not contract the stain of original sin - the privation of holiness and justice - by the grace of God, she was no longer subject to the law of sin and death, having been redeemed in the most sublime manner. And as a result, she did not inherit a sinful nature; nor did Mary have to die, but she chose death to be fully united with her Son in his passion, according to private revelations granted to saints and mystics. Mary was who she was by a singular privilege granted to her by God through his grace. Sanctifying grace permeated her soul the moment God fashioned it at the first instance of her conception, and the efficacy of the actual graces Mary received throughout her life helped keep her personally sinless. God put her and her Son at total enmity with the serpent and his seed (Gen 3:15), and He completely and enduringly made her prefect by his grace (Lk 1:28) because of her predestination to the Divine Maternity. Mary was most highly favoured among all human beings by the principle of predilection. This truth was acknowledged by St. Luke when he wrote his Gospel to bear witness to Church tradition. In the words of Mary in her canticle of praise (1:46-49):

“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;
my spirit rejoices in God my saviour.
For he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his handmaid.
Behold, from now on shall all generations call me blessed.
The Almighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.”

Filled with the Holy Spirit, Mary’s cousin Elizabeth exclaimed:* “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb”* (Lk 1:42). Both the Mother (the new Eve) and the Son (the new Adam) were blessed to have each other in their common humanity because of their innocence and purity in the sight of the God: Mary, by her Immaculate Conception; Jesus, by his substantial grace of union with the Father.

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.”
St. Augustine, On Nature and Grace 4,2 [36] (A.D. 415)

 

[CopticChristian]

Personally, I try always to keep in mind that I could be wrong.

Including Mary in the Romans 3 passage is sensible, because it’s the simplest interpretation. I’ve been taught that, when trying to understand Scripture, you should look at what’s simplest and most straight-forward first. So, when Romans 3 v23 says ‘all have sinned’, I would say it means ‘all’, as in everyone (excluding Jesus, because we know from elsewhere that He was without sin). The reason I wouldn’t exclude Mary from that is because I don’t see anything elsewhere in Scripture that would lead me to believe she is excluded. You use Scripture to interprete Scripture, so any conclusions have to be compatible with the whole of the Bible. If Mary was totally without sin, I would expect that to be mentioned somewhere in the Bible, but as far as I know, it is not. I am willing to be corrected, of course, so feel free.

Where is this taught?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Where is this taught?

Isaiah 28
9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
14Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

 

[PRmerger]

Isaiah 28
9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
14Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

The above says nothing at all about using Scripture to interpret Scripture.

The enemies of the prophet Isaiah used the above to mock him–he spoke with “stammering lips” and “precept upon precept, line upon line”.

Bu its very sound it is a verse of* ridicule. * Is that what you want to use as a support for the man-made tradition that Scripture interprets Scripture?