Mary - sinner - Romans 3?

[Richard_Kastner]

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
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?

So, you are saying that the above is not part of Isaiahs writings? That these words were written in the inspired word of God by Isaiah’s enemies and were used to mock God’s prophet? Is this an example of infallible exegesis?

 

[PRmerger]

So, you are saying that the above is not part of Isaiahs writings?

Of course it is a part of Isaiah’s writings. (And the only reason you know that it is inspired, BTW, is because the Catholic Church discerned for you that it was theopneustos.)

I am simply saying that there is nothing in Isaiah’s inspired words that says, “Scripture interprets Scripture.” You can press “control F” and search for the word “scripture” in that passage, and you’ll come up nada. You can press “control F” and search for the word “interprets” and you’ll come up with zilch.

That these words were written in the inspired word of God by Isaiah’s enemies and were used to mock God’s prophet?

Yes. It’s pretty clear that the words are a irreverent jab at Isaiah by his enemies.

Is this an example of infallible exegesis?

And I think it’s pretty clear by this comment that you have a deficient understanding of the Catholic teaching on infallibility.

 

[Marybeloved]

Does the Word of the Lord necessarily equate to scripture? Where’s that in the Bible?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Of course it is a part of Isaiah’s writings. (And the only reason you know that it is inspired, BTW, is because the Catholic Church discerned for you that it was theopneustos.)

I am simply saying that there is nothing in Isaiah’s inspired words that says, “Scripture interprets Scripture.” You can press “control F” and search for the word “scripture” in that passage, and you’ll come up nada. You can press “control F” and search for the word “interprets” and you’ll come up with zilch.

Isaiah 28
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?

Would “knowledge” and “doctrine” do?

Yes. It’s pretty clear that the words are a irreverent jab at Isaiah by his enemies.

Well first of all it is unimaginable that God would allow Isaiah’s enemies to ridicule His prophet in His inspired word. Second,

CHAPTER 1
1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

The book of Isaiah was written by Isaiah under the inspiration of God. That means all of it. Not that part of it was written by his enemies.

CHAPTER 28
1 Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is a fading flower, which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcomea with wine! 2 Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, which as a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing, shall cast down to the earth with the hand. 3 The crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, shall be trodden under feet: 4 And the glorious beauty, which is on the head of the fat valley, shall be a fading flower, and as the hasty fruit before the summer; which when he that looketh upon it seeth, while it is yet in his hand he eateth it up. 5 In that day shall the LORD of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people, 6 And for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate. 7 But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. 8 For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.

You read this passage from Isaiah 28 and you say it is written by the enemies of Isaiah and therefore the enemies of God all this is under the inspiration of God? So, you must be saying that this “irreverent jab at Isaiah by his enemies” must be an “irreverent jab at Isaiah” by God. Come on PR does that make sense?

And I think it’s pretty clear by this comment that you have a deficient understanding of the Catholic teaching on infallibility.

I have read many times on this forum Catholics saying that it is only the Catholic Church that is the final interpretive authority and you have said above “(And the only reason you know that it is inspired, BTW, is because the Catholic Church discerned for you that it was theopneustos.)” So straighten me out are you not saying that the CC is the final infallible interpreter of scripture?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Does the Word of the Lord necessarily equate to scripture? Where’s that in the Bible?

What else would it refer to.

Jn.5
39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

What else would it refer to.

Jn.5
39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

That verse in no way implies or states that The Word of God is ONLY written.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

That verse in no way implies or states that The Word of God is ONLY written.

The word scripture means written word. It’s were we get the word script which means writing and if you read the rest of Jn.5 you will see that Jesus is talking about what Moses WROTE about Him.
Jn.5
39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
41I receive not honour from men.
42But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

So, in what other way do you think that we recieve the word of God?

 

[Ginger2]

I have always maintained that God can speak to His children in wahtever way He chooses and is NOT limited by anything nor in need of human assistance (altho sometimes uses it) to explain His word.

MariaG, a very nice person and devout Catholic made this post a few years back and I have never forgotten, because it shows the power of God and His ability to reach whoever He wants, however He wants:

I used scripture alone and was led by the Holy Spirit. And later found my personal conclusions matched that of the Catholic Church

I love it. It wasn’t Catholic Tradition that interpreted the Word of God and led her to the RC, but Scripture alone, because the Holy Spirit spoke to her thru the written word. At least, that is what she claims.

 

[PRmerger]

Isaiah 28
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?

Would “knowledge” and “doctrine” do?

Even if it did, nowhere in that passage does it say that Scripture or knowledge or doctrine interprets Scripture or knowledge or doctrine.

Sheesh, that verse is as close to saying “Scripture interprets Scripture” as it is to saying, “Mary was assumed into heaven.”

Well first of all it is unimaginable that God would allow Isaiah’s enemies to ridicule His prophet in His inspired word.

How peculiar that you would say this. God allowed the death of His Son to be part of the inspired word–do you not think that’s even just a little worse than allowing a prophet’s enemies to ridicule him in the Scriptures?

The book of Isaiah was written by Isaiah under the inspiration of God. That means all of it. Not that part of it was written by his enemies.

Ah, I see now. You think I said that parts of Isaiah were written by his enemies. No, that’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying that the verses, "For he says,

‘Command on command, command on command,

rule on rule, rule on rule,

here a little, there a little!’

are the words of Isaiah depicting what his enemies have spoken about him.

At any rate, it’s foolish to argue whether the “here a little, there a little” was proclaimed by Isaiah or his enemies, because the bottom line is, the passage says NOTHING about Scripture interpreting Scripture.

I have read many times on this forum Catholics saying that it is only the Catholic Church that is the final interpretive authority and you have said above “(And the only reason you know that it is inspired, BTW, is because the Catholic Church discerned for you that it was theopneustos.)” So straighten me out are you not saying that the CC is the final infallible interpreter of scripture?

Yes, the CC is the final interpreter of Scripture. And the CC was the final arbiter in discerning what was theopneustos and what was not.

But saying the above is quite different from saying that the CC has provided infallible exegesis on each and every passage from the Bible.

You must understand and interpret the Scriptures through the lens of the faith, given once for all to the saints, that is, through the Catholic faith.

 

[PRmerger]

What else would it refer to.

Catholics believe that the Word of God is a* Person*.

 

[PRmerger]

The word **scripture **means written word.

Ok. No one will argue that.

We’re talking about though whether the*** Word of God*** is restricted to only Scripture. Catholics proclaim it is not. And you do, too, tacitly, each and every time you quote Scripture, for you would not know that Isaiah is inspired were it not for the Catholic Church discerning for you that it is inspired.

So, in what other way do you think that we recieve the word of God?

There is no other way except through the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

I love it. It wasn’t Catholic Tradition that interpreted the Word of God and led her to the RC, but Scripture alone, because the Holy Spirit spoke to her thru the written word. At least, that is what she claims.

Perhaps you misunderstand, Ginger, what the Church teaches regarding the Word of God. Scripture alone can lead someone to an understanding of Truth. But God’s Revelation is not restricted to Scripture alone. There are 2 wings upon which man rises to the contemplation of truth (paraphrasing the late, great Pope JPII): Scripture and Tradition.

Thus, if one wants to use only one wing upon which to contemplate the economy of salvation, one will be severely restricted in her flight to the heavens.

Fortunately, for the Catholic poster you cited, she used the one wing to come to the understanding of the truth of the CC, and we can therefore assume that she now has at her disposal both wings upon which to contemplate heaven.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Even if it did, nowhere in that passage does it say that Scripture or knowledge or doctrine interprets Scripture or knowledge or doctrine.

Sheesh, that verse is as close to saying “Scripture interprets Scripture” as it is to saying, “Mary was assumed into heaven.”

Ya this passage is not Isaiah’s enemies making fun of Him. This is Isaiah rebuking the teachers and priests of Judah for being drunkards.

Isaiah 28
7But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.
8For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.

Isaiah here asks the rhetorical question 9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?

And then he tells them exatly how doctrine and knowledge should be imparted

10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

This is saying that we should take the precepts and lines from one part of scripture and compare them to precepts and lines in other parts of the bible.

How peculiar that you would say this. God allowed the death of His Son to be part of the inspired word–do you not think that’s even just a little worse than allowing a prophet’s enemies to ridicule him in the Scriptures?

The entire bible is about God’s plan of salvation which is manifest in the death of His son on the cross. This is the reason for the bible. What reason would God have for allowing His enemies to bad mouth one of His prophet, prophets whose only function in the bible is to proclaim His son. Rev.19:10b “for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

Ah, I see now. You think I said that parts of Isaiah were written by his enemies. No, that’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying that the verses, "For he says,

‘Command on command, command on command,

rule on rule, rule on rule,

here a little, there a little!’

are the words of Isaiah depicting what his enemies have spoken about him.

Again what possible reason would he have for doing that?

At any rate, it’s foolish to argue whether the “here a little, there a little” was proclaimed by Isaiah or his enemies, because the bottom line is, the passage says NOTHING about Scripture interpreting Scripture.

Sure it does. It tells us how to teach scripture, by taking one part of it and comparing it with other parts. In other words letting scripture explain itself.

Yes, the CC is the final interpreter of Scripture. And the CC was the final arbiter in discerning what was theopneustos and what was not.

But saying the above is quite different from saying that the CC has provided infallible exegesis on each and every passage from the Bible.

So this is your private interpretation?

You must understand and interpret the Scriptures through the lens of the faith, given once for all to the saints, that is, through the Catholic faith.

What does this mean? What is the lens of faith?

 

[PRmerger]

Sure it does. It tells us how to teach scripture, by taking one part of it and comparing it with other parts. In other words letting scripture explain itself.

Comparing? Where does it say that?

That’s in there as much as the phrase “Immaculate Conception”

 

[PRmerger]

Ya this passage is not Isaiah’s enemies making fun of Him. This is Isaiah rebuking the teachers and priests of Judah for being drunkards.

Ok. So who is the one who is stammering in v11?

 

[CopticChristian]

Ya this passage is not Isaiah’s enemies making fun of Him. This is Isaiah rebuking the teachers and priests of Judah for being drunkards.

Isaiah 28
7But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.
8For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.

Isaiah here asks the rhetorical question 9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?

And then he tells them exatly how doctrine and knowledge should be imparted

10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

This is saying that we should take the precepts and lines from one part of scripture and compare them to precepts and lines in other parts of the bible.

The entire bible is about God’s plan of salvation which is manifest in the death of His son on the cross. This is the reason for the bible. What reason would God have for allowing His enemies to bad mouth one of His prophet, prophets whose only function in the bible is to proclaim His son. Rev.19:10b “for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

Again what possible reason would he have for doing that?

Sure it does. It tells us how to teach scripture, by taking one part of it and comparing it with other parts. In other words letting scripture explain itself.

So this is your private interpretation?

What does this mean? What is the lens of faith?

I agree with your sentiment. How is it you were able to conclude the reason for the Bible? What did you use to come to that formulation. Reading Numbers, Leveticus and Deuterotomy would not cause me to conclude that. No letter I know of in the Bible says that. Did I miss something? May you stay in Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

The entire bible is about God’s plan of salvation which is manifest in the death of His son on the cross. This is the reason for the bible.

What reason would God have for allowing His enemies to bad mouth one of His prophet, prophets whose only function in the bible is to proclaim His son. Rev.19:10b “for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

I am simply aghast that you would say this, Richard. Do you not know about His enemies doing something far more egregious than “bad mouthing” one of His own? They *crucified *him, yes?

And you find this in your Bible, I presume?

Again what possible reason would he have for doing that?

To show that his servants must take up their cross and follow him.

So this is your private interpretation?

Yes, it is. My informed and educated private interpretation.

What does this mean? What is the lens of faith?

The lens of faith is the “glasses” so to speak that you read the Scriptures and come to an understanding of Truth. The glasses that you have are man-made. The glasses Catholics have are God-given.

 

[Ginger2]

… Scripture alone can lead someone to an understanding of Truth. But God’s Revelation is not restricted to Scripture alone.

I agree! There are many ways God speaks to His people.

… There are 2 wings upon which man rises to the contemplation of truth (paraphrasing the late, great Pope JPII): Scripture and Tradition.

Here we part ways.

 

[Ginger2]

The lens of faith is the “glasses” so to speak that you read the Scriptures and come to an understanding of Truth.

The glasses that you have are man-made. The glasses Catholics have are God-given.

 

[PRmerger]

Don’t you think a Muslim would put a frowny face in a dialogue with him in which you said, “Your glasses through which you worship Allah are man-made, rather than God-given”?

The fact that it makes you sad to read what I posted makes me sad, but just like you wouldn’t refrain from proclaiming the Truth to a Muslim, so, too, must Catholics not refrain from proclaiming the Truth to non-Catholics.