Need advice: Evangelical "interpretation" of scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter squain
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

squain

Guest
I am a Catholic university student, and have been trying to engage my Evangelical Protestant friends about scriptural passages… however I am finding this overwhelmingly frustrating.

Even though these same Evangelicals steadfastly claim that scripture cannot and should not be “interpreted” (they claim that scripture needs no interpretation, the meaning of the words of scripture are “self evident”), it seems that every time I talk about a passage, they espouse their own “interpretation” of what that passage means…ie John 6, Matthew 16, etc.

I wonder if they can see how illogical (hypocritical?) they are in claiming that scripture needs no interpretation, yet they (and their pastors, and their thousands of churches) offer endless interpretations of their own… it seems like every discussion just turns into a vicious circle with me simply trying to get them to try to understand what scripture means instead of offering their pastors or their personal interpretations of what scripture means.

Can anyone help?
 
squain
Even though these same Evangelicals steadfastly claim that scripture cannot and should not be “interpreted” (they claim that scripture needs no interpretation, the meaning of the words of scripture are “self evident”), it seems that every time I talk about a passage, they espouse their own “interpretation” of what that passage means…
Click to expand...
Sacred Scripture – the collection of writings known as the Bible didn’t fall out of the sky. Jesus wrote nothing, so who put together these writings and on whose authority are they said to be the inspired Word of God? Why are 7 books missing from Protestant Bibles?
 
I don’t think you are going to be able to convince them of anything. They have no authority in their churches so they can say whatever they want about scripture. Every denomination has their verses that they claim prove their doctrines. Including us. I think you are just going to keep butting heads.

I would instead try to put scripture in perspective for them. Tell them their denomination is one of thousands. Scripture can’t be self evident for this very reason. In fact, Peter says in scripture that the word is hard to understand and cannot be interpreted independently. It has to be put into perspective by looking at the big picture which includes tradition. The protestants have separated themselves from apostolic tradition and have taken to reading scripture without any context. And you know how much they love to talk about context…

So, maybe introduce some other early Christian writings to the discussion. If they can read all of the modern interpretations about scripture then surely they can look into how those same verses were read during the first couple centuries.
 
squain said:
I am a Catholic university student, and have been trying to engage my Evangelical Protestant friends about scriptural passages… however I am finding this overwhelmingly frustrating.

Even though these same Evangelicals steadfastly claim that scripture cannot and should not be “interpreted” (they claim that scripture needs no interpretation, the meaning of the words of scripture are “self evident”), it seems that every time I talk about a passage, they espouse their own “interpretation” of what that passage means…ie John 6, Matthew 16, etc.

I wonder if they can see how illogical (hypocritical?) they are in claiming that scripture needs no interpretation, yet they (and their pastors, and their thousands of churches) offer endless interpretations of their own… it seems like every discussion just turns into a vicious circle with me simply trying to get them to try to understand what scripture means instead of offering their pastors or their personal interpretations of what scripture means.

Can anyone help?
Click to expand...
And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. Acts 8:30-31

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.2 Peter 3:16

Are these words self-evident?

Some passages are easy to understand but some require a guide. Usually, the it’s the ones we disagree on that require a guide. Ask them why you should accept their interpretation over the other 20,000+ denomonations’ interpretations(not to say there are that many but you get the point). If everyone agreed on the same thing, then it would be self-evident, but it’s not.
 
Hi, thecone137 makes some really excellent points. The word “unlearned” in the passage in 2nd Peter 3:16, literally means “un-discipled” in the common Greek. You therefore have to be “discipled,” so to speak, in order to understand the Scripture’s accurately. Also, some studies have shown that there are in access of 33,000 Christian denominations in the world today. Pretty embarrassing for a protestant who claims that Scripture interpretation in and of itself, is self-evident.
 
Advice on sharing truth with Evangelicals:

Hello Squain,

I think you are on the right track. Keep sharing. Don’t get frustrated. Many of these
people will come into the faith even years later and then come back and tell you
what a positive effect you had on them way back when (that’d be now). They will
not let you know it at this time though! Don’t expect that. This is a loooong process
and it takes much grace. Grace builds on nature – so keep sharing with them.

If they start cutting you off, it may signify you made more of an impression than you think
(it may not too, but you won’t know until later and perhaps not even then).

KEEP the channels of friendship going. Always close the discussions with a suggestion
to get together again and discuss and if you can set some sort of a time aside, all the better (i.e. Let’s get together again and discuss this stuff Sunday afternoon after ultimate frisbee or before our intermural softball game").

Like Scott Hahn says: “They don’t care what you know, until they know that you care.”

Regarding getting into Scriptural doctrinal aspects of the Eucharist, etc. it has been my experience with Evangelicals that the state of mind they have is

1-“That’s merely his interpretation.” . . . AND

2-“He’s wrong”

(and sometimes 3-“If he doesn’t agree with me he’s just a reprobate and can’t see “truth” because he’s not one of the real sheep”).

I think it is more fruitful to focus mainly on the sola Scriptura issue. It sounds like you have
done some of that.

Also when dialoguing on other topics keep mixing in the sola Scriptura issue.

Why?

Because I think that is more helpful for these guys to realize they have an incomplete
foundation.

If you are going to get into this in more detail though with them you owe it to them and yourself
(see James 3:1 and James 5:19-20) to strive after holiness, pray often, frequent the Confessional, and study assiduously. If someone is imbibing a lot of the inappropriate aspects of what College life can be, it will not only hurt you but scandalize these people you are sharing the faith with.

YOU are probably already doing all the right things such as prayer, study, frequenting the Sacraments, etc. (you just being here as a College student says something positive about your character) but since this is a forum, other folks will read this and internalize these suggestions too.

Also, once they figure out their foundation is flawed; you don’t want them to quit discussing with you and possibly even lose their faith.
You want them to KNOW where they can find the fullness of truth - the Catholic Church so
it’s important for you to have a good working knowledge of some of the other main topics too (as it sounds like you do).

So keep up the good work.

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
This may sound strange at first, but I have tried it in the past and it seems to work well with some people.
  • First of all, keep track of the Protestant counter-interpretations you hear against Catholic doctrine.
  • Brush up on the Catholic responses and find out what other Catholics said before Protestantism came on the scene.
  • Then, when you get Protestant counter-interpretations in face-to-face situations, just say, “well that can’t be right, because this other scripture says XYZ and besides St Soandso and St Suchandsuch already knew this centuries ago”.
You will get either a second round of Bible verses or a comment on how you shouldn’t look to man for scriptural interpretation.
  • Then respond, “well my point is that it’s always been obvious to us what this passage means; why it’s not obvious to you I don’t know what to say”.
— Let me give you an example of what I mean —
  • Protestants often say Mary had other children after Jesus because there are verses that refer to Jesus’ “brothers”. Hence she is not “Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin”.
  • Catholic responses include (1) Some of those “brothers” are definitely identified in other verses as being sons of another Mary, not the mother of Jesus; (2) At the Annunciation Mary says, “How can this be since I know not man?”, but the question is nonsensical unless she had already taken a vow of virginity-in-marriage; (3) St Jerome already knew about this problem and gave a solution.
  • Then, when someone comes along and says “But Jesus had brothers and sisters”, just say, "well, that can’t be right, because Matthew 27:56 says that the mother of James and Joses at least was another Mary not Jesus’ mother; and besides it was already common knowledge by the time of St Jerome.
You may get either “But scripture calls Jesus Mary’s FIRST-born, meaning there was a second-born, and a third-born, and so on” or “Jerome is not inspired and you have to let scripture interpret scripture”.
  • You may respond, “well it’s been obvious to all Christians for over 1600 years; why all of a sudden you think it’s totally wrong I couldn’t say”.
At this point you’ll probably get more verses to back up the Protestant position, such as “scripture says Joseph knew her not UNTIL she brought forth her first born son, which means he DID know her AFTER”; you may respond, “yes, we’ve known about that verse too all along, since we’ve all had the same Bible all along, and why the solution still isn’t obvious to you I still can’t say”.

I guess the reason it has worked with me is that (1) I stood my ground, acting like I have nothing to prove, because really I don’t have anything to prove but they do since they came on the scene late; and (2) it forces them to go see for themselves just how obvious it was to all Christians everywhere up to the days of Protestantism, and who knows, maybe they’ll see just how obviously wrong their position is.
 
DianaCC said:
This may sound strange at first, but I have tried it in the past and it seems to work well with some people.
  • First of all, keep track of the Protestant counter-interpretations you hear against Catholic doctrine.
  • Brush up on the Catholic responses and find out what other Catholics said before Protestantism came on the scene.
  • Then, when you get Protestant counter-interpretations in face-to-face situations, just say, “well that can’t be right, because this other scripture says XYZ and besides St Soandso and St Suchandsuch already knew this centuries ago”.
You will get either a second round of Bible verses or a comment on how you shouldn’t look to man for scriptural interpretation.
  • Then respond, “well my point is that it’s always been obvious to us what this passage means; why it’s not obvious to you I don’t know what to say”.
— Let me give you an example of what I mean —
  • Protestants often say Mary had other children after Jesus because there are verses that refer to Jesus’ “brothers”. Hence she is not “Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin”.
  • Catholic responses include (1) Some of those “brothers” are definitely identified in other verses as being sons of another Mary, not the mother of Jesus; (2) At the Annunciation Mary says, “How can this be since I know not man?”, but the question is nonsensical unless she had already taken a vow of virginity-in-marriage; (3) St Jerome already knew about this problem and gave a solution.
  • Then, when someone comes along and says “But Jesus had brothers and sisters”, just say, "well, that can’t be right, because Matthew 27:56 says that the mother of James and Joses at least was another Mary not Jesus’ mother; and besides it was already common knowledge by the time of St Jerome.
You may get either “But scripture calls Jesus Mary’s FIRST-born, meaning there was a second-born, and a third-born, and so on” or “Jerome is not inspired and you have to let scripture interpret scripture”.
  • You may respond, “well it’s been obvious to all Christians for over 1600 years; why all of a sudden you think it’s totally wrong I couldn’t say”.
At this point you’ll probably get more verses to back up the Protestant position, such as “scripture says Joseph knew her not UNTIL she brought forth her first born son, which means he DID know her AFTER”; you may respond, “yes, we’ve known about that verse too all along, since we’ve all had the same Bible all along, and why the solution still isn’t obvious to you I still can’t say”.

I guess the reason it has worked with me is that (1) I stood my ground, acting like I have nothing to prove, because really I don’t have anything to prove but they do since they came on the scene late; and (2) it forces them to go see for themselves just how obvious it was to all Christians everywhere up to the days of Protestantism, and who knows, maybe they’ll see just how obviously wrong their position is.
Click to expand...
Another good proof for Mary’s virginity is that Jesus on the cross gives her into the care of John. This wouldn’t have been necessary and would have even been an insult if Jesus had brothers.

Also, who cares what prots think, they are a 16th century invention… and actually, they don’t even believe the same thing as they did then… they are simply just winging it.
 
I would say, don’t bother slinging verses back and forth. That really goes nowhere.

Pick a few specific doctrines and become very well versed in them, at least at first, and just try to show your friends how there is beauty and truth in the Catholic Church and how scripture backs up those doctrines in a beautiful way.

Mary works great with women. Mortal and venial sin is non-threatenin and can really get them thinking about theological issues and how the Catholic Church may in fact be correct on a very specific point of theology.

My goal is to get an evangelical to say, “Wow, that’s pretty cool. I didn’t know Catholics believed that” or “I’ve never heard it explained that way.” or something similar. What you will probably find is that they may start coming to you to ask about the “Catholic take” on certain passages. That’s when you know that God is watering the seeds.

And keep inviting them to Mass. Get them to experience and participate in the Mass. Anything is possible once they enter the Eucharistic presence of our Lord.

But yea, slinging verses can be a very tiresom. Hearing “I think it means…” and “How this verse speaks to my heart is…” is frustrating. It takes an enourmous ammount of patience… I know because my best friend is a Protestant Pastor.

And on the other side of the coin, he has taught me a thing or two.

-Tim-

-Tim-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top