I understand where you are coming from here, but it’s based on the mistaken Catholic assumption that scripture requires some extra-super-duper interpretation. Admittedly, some things are not easy to understand and there are areas that are open to debate/interpretation, but when Jesus says “repent” it pretty much means to repent, no?
Yeah. “repent” is clear to me. It’s clear to me that I must, and if I do not, I am not saved. It is also clear to me that I must continually repent throughout my life, and if not, I may not be saved - which is not a universal understanding of it, though. I agree with you that some of Scripture can be understood on the surface. But that understanding begins to rapidly diminish once you move away from single words, phrases, and verses. Context is certainly not clear by reading Scripture on our own. Some words, like “repent”, “believe”, “be baptized”, are somewhat clear. But what is not fully clear is not only “how” to do these things, but also what the consequences are for
not doing these things. For example, I say Scripture reveals baptism is essential for salvation. My dad thinks it has no consequence.
So overall…No. Scripture is not at all significantly clear enough for us to receive sufficient knowledge on our own. It’s not that it takes “extra-super-duper interpretation” from us Christians to be able to understand it. It’s that it takes an inspired entity to accompany it to develop it’s deepest, fullest meanings as God intended us to know it. This entity must accompany it until the end of the age (Christ’s return).
Your argument sounds strangely similar to atheist arguments against the Bible. When Hilkiah found the Book of the Law and brought it to Josiah, it was obvious they were not obeying the Law, and the solution was pretty simple: repent and obey. It’s really not as complicated as Catholics make it out to be.
Well, I believe the atheist circular argument against Christianity and the Protestant circular argument for Bible-alone use essentially the same logic. Neither of them rings true. That comparison notwithstanding, I’ll concede to you that Scripture is not completely unclear in certain, limited aspects. One thing about your Hilkiah example, however…from what foundation of teaching did Josiah come, to be capable of understanding the “Book of the Law” in a way that was simple enough to realize that the kingdom was largely disobedient? Was he not aligned with prophetic teaching? Did he not consult Huldah about his concern? And did she not authenticate the book and prophesy a future of destruction for failure to follow it? This was infallible human teaching which actually led the faithful through Scripture.
Did Philip have some vague claim to authenticity when he shared the Gospel with the Ethiopian Eunuch?
No, you’re right. Philip was clearly “sent” by the Spirit, but did not claim this authenticity to the Eunuch. I suppose my point wasn’t so much that your teachers must claim authenticity, but rather that they HAVE this authenticity. I believe the clear message in Acts 8 is that inspired humans must accompany inspired writings.
They didn’t tell me what Scripture says, they showed them to me, I “searched the scriptures” to see if what they were telling me was true; I found it to be so, so I made my confession, repented, and was baptized. Again, it’s not all that complicated as you are making it out to be. Obviously, I came to the scriptures with some preconceived notions and beliefs. We all do. This “problem” is not unique to non-Catholics and your intimating that it is so is wrong.
I’m not claiming it’s a “problem”. Quite the contrary, I fully agree that human teaching has primacy, and must accompany Scripture to gain an authentic understanding of its full meaning. Yes, I come to Scripture with preconceived notions and beliefs. They are from the Catholic Church. Yours are from non-Catholic teachers. And in both cases, they “show us the Scriptures”, and we “search the scriptures”…but the difference is that I don’t use Scripture to “see if what they tell me is true”. I use Scripture to more fully understand what they teach. The point is, we both trust teachers FIRST. You claim you really don’t, but rather that you trust them AFTER you confirm what they teach from Scripture is supported by that same Scripture. If that was really possible to do, why would you need human teachers in the first place? If all you’re doing is just using Scripture to validate them, then who needs them? What you’re doing is fully trusting a combination of your own, and their, interpretation of Scripture. And so the question is…is this how the Bible was intended to be used? Are we all just supposed to read it ourselves, or is there supposed to be an accompanying human authority with it (an authority granted by Christ)?
God Bless, and thanks for the dialogue.
talk about discomfort…