Question on Matthew 5:29

[De_Maria]

Wow De_Maria. I’m not sure how to read this. You and I have had many disagreements over the years but today we agree on something. This is great.

I’m not sure what this hermeneutic issue is all about or those who claim sola scriptura is a hermeneutic. I don’t know what they mean by this.

The word Hermeneutic comes from Greek mythology hermes. The word was borrowed only to use
as a reference to the science of interpretation. Some scholars use these skills, others do not.
I am a firm believer in them. Here’s why: Making a good bible interpretation is probably one of the most important things you will ever do when reading the scriptures. We’ve had over two-thousand years of practice and today we’ve gotten it down to a very trustworthy science.

Most, if not all doctrinal error can be traced to a flimsy and weak interpretation, or driven by a theological predisposition (or school of thought.) In other words if our hermeneutic is only controlled by our accepted theology / tradition / denominational premise, etc. … then it is very possible the bible can be misinterpreted because of bias and prejudice.
Unfortunately, some bible-teachers have either thrown out the practice of hermeneutics, or never had one in the first place.

Here are 5 basic rules to a good interpretation.

1. Rule #1: Scripture never contradicts scripture
2. Take Scripture in its context.
3. Compare Scripture with Scripture.
4. Let Scripture define Scripture
5. Let Scripture interpret scripture.

Thanks, tg. From your 5 rules, I can now see why they call their hermeneutic, Scripture alone. They’re basically saying that only thing they use is Scripture.

If we compare to the Catholic hermeneutic, we compare the Word of God in Scripture to the Word of God in Sacred Tradition. We let the Word of God interpret the Word of God. But, it is only the discernment of the infallible Catholic Church which matters, in the end.

But, back to the hermeneutic you’ve described, you say:

We’ve had over two-thousand years of practice and today we’ve gotten it down to a very trustworthy science.

What we see, though, is that, using that hermeneutic that you’ve described, you have some who believe in infant baptism, some who don’t. Some who believe baptism is efficacious, some who don’t. Some who believe works are important, some who don’t. Etc.

So, how can it be considered, trustworthy?

 

[tgGodsway]

If we compare to the Catholic hermeneutic, we compare the Word of God in Scripture to the Word of God in Sacred Tradition.

How do you make this comparison between the written word and tradition? I was told on this site that sacred tradition is not like chapter and verse?.. But if we were to actually compare certain Catholic doctrines derived from tradition, to that of scripture, we have huge discrepancies in my view.

Back to your comments: in my view infant baptism doesn’t pass a basic hermeneutic test. I would like to see that. Much of the problem, again in my personal opinion, is terminology itself.

We all throw around words as if these words all mean the same thing in each circle. I don’t think they do. We all read into certain words a bias based on our belief system as the undercurrent.

For example: If I were to open my door to a Mormon who has come to convert me. His terminology is palatable because he will use terms I am familiar with. Such as “We believe in Jesus Christ!” Wonderful. … but with a little probing, I find out his definition of Jesus Christ and mine are simply not the same. This dynamic happens among Christian groups both protestant and protestant with Catholic.

I used to believe that a Christian can lose their salvation, something very similar to what Catholics believe. But after placing that doctrine under the test of scripture (hermeneutical principles) I was forced to abandon my previous view. It just didn’t stand the test. It took me two years to make that cross over.
The ability to let the written word get the last word is humbling. If I position myself to believe my view is correct even if it is not valid from scripture, I create all kind of problems for myself. I know I can be wrong on a matter, but this does not bother me. My savior has me in the palm of His hand.

 

[De_Maria]

How do you make this comparison between the written word and tradition?

Well, first of all, we believe that there is no conflict between Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scripture. So, what we’re really comparing is the individual’s interpretation of the Word of God to the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the Word of God in Sacred Tradition and Scripture.

So, as an example, Arius, a Bishop, taught his interpretation of Scripture, that Jesus was a creature since He was born in time.

The Catholic Church used the interpretations of the Church Fathers to combat that idea and prevailed.

Does that answer the question?

I was told on this site that sacred tradition is not like chapter and verse?..

What does that mean?

But if we were to actually compare certain Catholic doctrines derived from tradition, to that of scripture,

The New Testament is derived from Sacred Tradition.

we have huge discrepancies in my view.

I know that’s what you believe. And you know I believe differently. But I’d like to skip that eternal debate and focus on something else. Our heuristic leads to consistent interpretations. It is basically the utterance attributed to St. Paul.

Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

Notice that he doesn’t say, “if it disagrees with your interpretation of Scripture.” Nor, “if it disagrees with Scripture.” But, “our preaching” which is the same thing as handing down Sacred Tradition by word.

Back to your comments: in my view infant baptism doesn’t pass a basic hermeneutic test. I would like to see that. Much of the problem, again in my personal opinion, is terminology itself.

Yes. But there are Protestants, Lutherans, using the same hermeneutic you’ve described, who believe in and practice infant baptism. So, shouldn’t that process arrive at consistent results?

We all throw around words as if these words all mean the same thing in each circle. I don’t think they do. We all read into certain words a bias based on our belief system as the undercurrent.

So, it’s centered on how we think and talk and not on the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

For example: If I were to open my door to a Mormon who has come to convert me. His terminology is palatable because he will use terms I am familiar with. Such as “We believe in Jesus Christ!” Wonderful. … but with a little probing, I find out his definition of Jesus Christ and mine are simply not the same. This dynamic happens among Christian groups both protestant and protestant with Catholic.

That’s true. But are you addressing the question of the same hermeneutic technique being used by several parties and leading to disparate results?

I used to believe that a Christian can lose their salvation, something very similar to what Catholics believe. But after placing that doctrine under the test of scripture (hermeneutical principles) I was forced to abandon my previous view.

Do you not see how that comment makes you the determiner of God’s Word?

For Catholics, it doesn’t matter if we agree with the Doctrine or not. The Catholic Church says that her Doctrines were passed down to us by Jesus Christ and we must obey, whether we believe them or not.

It just didn’t stand the test.

Your test. But many others, even Protestants, agree with it.

It took me two years to make that cross over.
The ability to let the written word get the last word is humbling. If I position myself to believe my view is correct even if it is not valid from scripture, I create all kind of problems for myself. I know I can be wrong on a matter, but this does not bother me. My savior has me in the palm of His hand.

From my point of view, you are declaring yourself your saviour, because you decide what is the Word of God.

Ok, well, I didn’t want to get into an argument. I see now why some call it a hermeneutical principle. They must be using the same 5 points you produced. As I’m sharpening my sword, I can simply say to them, "Well, produce those points from Scripture. Because I see Gal 1:8 which says that if the preaching disagrees with our preaching, let him be accursed. And again, “Rom 10:14 how can they believe if no one has preached to them?”

Thanks for your contributions. We can continue the discussion if you want. I just don’t want it to devolve.

 

[tgGodsway]

Okay De_Maria, … just to finish up. I know you are comfortable to have one unified theological position with one unified interpretation of any given passage. I know this has, perhaps, a sense of security or confidence in it. But I’ve never met a Catholic who actually agrees with all the official points of view. There is always some nuance of perspective slightly different. But regardless, if you are one of the higher-ups, you have no choice but to agree when you cast your vote. I would suspect when the magisterium decides on an interpretation of something, or even the Pope jumps in with his, not everyone involved actually sees it line upon line or agrees on every word.

What makes it even more difficult, I imagine, is when you add a pronouncement of infallibility to the process. After all, who can argue with God? The doctrines become untouchable, and removed from any fair scrutiny, just as the leaders are untouchable and infallible in their final conclusions. They become, in a sense, insolated from rebuke or discipline. And certainly any evangelical leader, well versed in the scriptures who would disagree is certainly shut out and not in the same infallible category to even be taken seriously.

What is amazing is that all of this is based on someone’s long-ago interpretation of Peter and his keys in a time when the science of interpretation even with my basic 5 points, never existed.

But the irony comes in when we realizes that the only ones who actually took such a ridged position on doctrine was the Apostles of the 1st. century. The irony is that they, unlike today’s modern Catholic theologian, and some mainline protestants, they were the eye-witnesses to Christ and his resurrection. They closed the door (as you mentioned in Galatians) on anyone wanting to (add, or, make major adjustments) to doctrine at the conclusion of their lives, leaving us with their written intent.

That written intent was a deliberate record given by the Holy Spirit himself, to reach every generation until the second coming. As far as tradition is concerned, I would think that it should be a carbon copy of scripture only, in order to be taken seriously, seeing how it was spoken of in such a negative light by our savior.

This is my view De_Maria. Thank you for the very polite discussion. It was nice.

 

[De_Maria]

This is my view De_Maria. Thank you for the very polite discussion. It was nice.

You’re welcome.

 

[Gorgias]

But I’ve never met a Catholic who actually agrees with all the official points of view.

So… argumentum ad populum much?

tgGodsway:

There is always some nuance of perspective slightly different.

Sure. But, that doesn’t invalidate the doctrine itself. Heck, by that standard, we were all sunk in the moment that Adam and Eve sinned and told God, “nah… I think you’re wrong, God!”…!

tgGodsway:

I would suspect when the magisterium decides on an interpretation of something, or even the Pope jumps in with his, not everyone involved actually sees it line upon line or agrees on every word.

Probably true… but immaterial. When the pope with the college of bishops agrees on a point, then that point – however contentious it had been in deliberations – is settled. Same thing happens in deliberative bodies; laws do not cease being the law of the land, simply because some voted otherwise. (Oh… wait. That’s pretty much what many folks wanted to happen following the election in 2016, wasn’t it? )

tgGodsway:

when you add a pronouncement of infallibility to the process. After all, who can argue with God?

That’s pretty much 180 degrees backward. Remember: in Mt 16, Jesus didn’t say “you’re going to do what God wants you to do”; He said, “what you decide, God will accept.” So… “infallibility” doesn’t mean “God forced you to do it”; it means “the Holy Spirit protects the Church, and what the Church decides, God accepts.”

tgGodsway:

The doctrines become untouchable, and removed from any fair scrutiny, just as the leaders are untouchable and infallible in their final conclusions.

No, on both points. The doctrines are open to future re-phrasing; it’s just that they cannot be reversed. “Fair scrutiny” is fair game, at least in the context of “how can we phrase this for maximum understanding in the current culture?”. And the leaders? “Untouchable and infallible”? No. Not at all. That’s wholly a mischaracterization, and I hope you see that this is the case. No one says that a member of the college of bishops – or a pope, for that matter – is “infallible” in his person.

tgGodsway:

What is amazing is that all of this is based on someone’s long-ago interpretation of Peter and his keys

That ‘someone’ is the Church, to whom Jesus gave a proxy of authority. Do you really want to kick at the goad… of Jesus?

tgGodsway:

the irony comes in when we realize that the only ones who actually took such a ridged position on doctrine was the Apostles of the 1st. century… unlike today’s modern, they were the eye-witnesses to Christ and his resurrection. They closed the door on anyone wanting to (add, or, make major adjustments) to doctrine at the conclusion of their lives, leaving us with their written intent.

The ‘irony’ that they were the eyewitnesses to Christ and His teaching, and we – two millennia later – want to tell them “sorry, I think you got it wrong” is high irony, indeed!

 

[De_Maria]

The ‘irony’ …:

Yep.

I think that they sincerely believe they are following the instructions which the Apostles wrote down in the New Testament Scriptures.

They are doing what any good scholar does. They are going to the earliest written source they can find.

The only source more authoritative is Jesus Christ. He can explain what He meant when He spoke those words.

Whereas, we do go to Jesus Christ. The Church is the Body of Christ. We literally believe that the Pope is Vicarius Christi. And we also have access to the inspired written Word.

But, even though they claim to live by faith alone, apparently, they don’t have enough faith to believe that Christ is still leading His Church.

I’m trying to get past that log jam. How do we get them to see that when they interpret Scripture alone, they are really imposing upon Scripture their own presuppositions.

Anyway, nice job!

 

[De_Maria]

Okay De_Maria, … just to finish up. I know you are comfortable to have one unified theological position with one unified interpretation of any given passage. I know this has, perhaps, a sense of security or confidence in it. …

Isn’t this what Christ prayed for?

John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

 

[tgGodsway]

Th

I am for oneness De_Maria, but not imposed upon us by Rome in the 6th. Century. The unity of the faith will come in the knowledge of the son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Eph. 4:13. That unity will be the by-product of divine harmony among all the people of God.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Th

I am for oneness De_Maria, but not imposed upon us by Rome in the 6th. Century.

What does the 6th century have to do with this?

The unity of the faith will come in the knowledge of the son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Eph. 4:13.

Still not following. This does not contradict Catholic Teaching. In fact, it is Catholic Teaching. So, what’s the objection that you seem to have?

That unity will be the by-product of divine harmony among all the people of God.

It’s the by-product of obeying God. It’s the by-product of loving one’s neighbor. It’s the by-product of loving God. All of this is Catholic Teaching. What’s the 6th century got to do with anything?

 

[tgGodsway]

What does the 6th century have to do with this?

It was in the 6th. century that Rome forced all other Churches to come under their umbrella of unity. It was a significant period of time for the CC.

 

[tgGodsway]

When we (CC and Protestant) have such huge disagreements over such major doctrine, we must still find harmony in the body of Christ. The CC seems to go out of its way to say, we are second class Christians until or unless we return to the CC. I’m sure there are protestants who do the same. Neither side is right, in my view. The unity of the faith comes through harmony of heart and soul. Both sides will posture superiority. I hate it.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

What does the 6th century have to do with this?

It was in the 6th. century that Rome forced all other Churches to come under their umbrella of unity. It was a significant period of time for the CC.

What other churches? This must be Protestant re-written history. The Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus Christ established and within which He commanded unity. In the 6th century, except for a handful of heretics, there was only one Church, the Catholic Church.

When we (CC and Protestant) have such huge disagreements over such major doctrine, we must still find harmony in the body of Christ. The CC seems to go out of its way to say, we are second class Christians until or unless we return to the CC. I’m sure there are protestants who do the same. Neither side is right, in my view. The unity of the faith comes through harmony of heart and soul. Both sides will posture superiority. I hate it.

What do you think of this verse?

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Do you think that St. Paul was posturing superiority?
Do you think that things have changed? If someone is preaching a different gospel today, should we simply overlook it?

 

[tgGodsway]

What other churches? This must be Protestant re-written history.

I’m not in a place where I can give you direct history right now. But I will get back to you and give you the historical facts. Yes the CC was in existence, but not all the C Churches wanted to recognize Rome’s Pope as the last word on matters of faith and practice. The Pope at the time forced them. I’ll get back on it.

 

[SeraficLeo]

The Pope’s word was the final on all ecclesiastical matters until the attempt to elevate the patriarch of Constantinople to second place in ecclesiastical hierarchy.

 

[tgGodsway]

Okay, I couldn’t wait until tomorrow. I went down in my basement office to retrieve Dr. Loraine Boettner’s book Roman Catholicism. And on page 126 he speaks to our subject.

"For a period of six centuries after the time of Christ none of the regional churches attempted to exercise authority over any of the other regional Churches. The early ecumenical councils were composed of delegates from the various churches who met as equals. There is not a scholar anywhere who pretends to show any decree, cannon, or resolution by any of the ecumenical councils which attempts to give pre-eminence to any one church. The first six hundred years of the Christian era know nothing of any spiritual supremacy on the part of the bishops of Rome. The papacy really began in the year 590 with Gregory I, as Gregory the Great, who consolidated the power of the bishopric in Rome and started that church on a new course.

We quote two contemporary church historians, one a Protestant and the other a Roman Catholic, concerning the place of Gregory in this development. Says Professor A. M. Renwick of the Free Church College, Edinburgh, Scotland: … "His brilliant rule, set a standard for those who came after him and he, is really the first ‘pope’ who can, with perfect accuracy, be given the title. Along with Leo I (440-461), Gregory VII (1073-1085), and Innocent III (1198-1216), he stands out as one of the chief architects of the papal system, (The story of the church. p.64)

And the Catholic historian, Philip Hughes, says that Gregory I “… is generally regarded as the greatest of all his line… it was to him that Rome turned at every crisis where the Lombards, (the invaders from the north) were concerned. He begged his people off and he bought them off. He ransomed the captives and organized the great relief services for widows and orphans. Finally, in 598, he secured a thirty years truce. It was St. Gregory who, in these years, was the real ruler of Rome and in a very real sense he is the founder of the papal monarchy” (a Popular History of the Catholic Church, p. 75, 1947, Used by permission of the Macmillan Company).

From this time forward, the unity of the CC became forced through the papal system is my point. This kind of unity bothers me greatly.

 

[Gorgias]

The papacy really began in the year 590 with Gregory I, as Gregory the Great, who consolidated the power of the bishopric in Rome and started that church on a new course.

it was to him that Rome turned at every crisis where the Lombards, (the invaders from the north) were concerned.

He ransomed the captives and organized the great relief services for widows and orphans. Finally, in 598, he secured a thirty years truce. It was St. Gregory who, in these years, was the real ruler of Rome

So, wait… the people turn to the pope for relief against pagan invaders. He provides that relief. And that’s your definition of a “forced papal system”?

"For a period of six centuries after the time of Christ none of the regional churches attempted to exercise authority over any of the other regional Churches.

That is certainly not the case. Northern Africa, for example, tried time and again to force their understanding of doctrine on the Church Universal, but the Church was having none of it.

 

[Fauken]

Dr. Loraine Boettner’s book Roman Catholicism

Why on earth do you have that book?

 

[SeraficLeo]

The early ecumenical councils were composed of delegates from the various churches who met as equals.

That is a joke.