Scripture Plus..?

[SusTre]

How do I help some friends and family come to understand that The Church is needed for the interpretation of Scripture? I had a discussion with them and one of their family this weekend and they just went through the bible but when I tried to show them other verses they bounced to others and basically saym “Scripture interprets scripture”… That is totally hard to defend for me because they don’t accept there was any Church after The Apostles all died. That it was basically a “God Inspired” Text that was somehow protected to what we have today. Whew!!! What a leap of “Faith” that is…no pun… What can I add to this conversation? Anybody?

 

[NotWorthy]

Scripture interprets Scripture?!?! Really!

Then how do you explain all the various interpretations of numerous Scriptures. Ask to 10 Bible Christian churches what does Baptism affect and you’ll get 15 different answers!

Ask them to explain Matthew 18 which talks about the Church having authority AND NOT SCRIPTURE.

Ask them about the Ethiopian Eunuch and Phillip. When asked if he understood Isaiah, the Eunuch replies, “How can I, if I don’t have someone to interpret it?”.

Then ask them if the Baptist church teaches the same as the Methodist and the Assembly of God and the Church of Christ and the Episcopalian and the Presbyterian and the Lutheran and the Jehovah Witnesses. All of these churches are based on “Scripture”.

 

[SusTre]

Scripture interprets Scripture?!?! Really!

Then how do you explain all the various interpretations of numerous Scriptures. Ask to 10 Bible Christian churches what does Baptism affect and you’ll get 15 different answers!

Ask them to explain Matthew 18 which talks about the Church having authority AND NOT SCRIPTURE.

Ask them about the Ethiopian Eunuch and Phillip. When asked if he understood Isaiah, the Eunuch replies, “How can I, if I don’t have someone to interpret it?”.

All your points are well taken, but is not as easy as 123… ok? I need more to work with. we are talking about very "out there"people and i am just trying to work the “authority” issue right now after all their lives the Scripture was theirs. I have a lot of books and always buy new stuff apologetically. but my point is these people dont believe there was ever a DIRECTIVE to the church to have successors from the apostles. But i thank you for your care and help. I need specific new… fresh… buttons to push with them… if you have more aids or souces i can use through the bible which is their turf…then please send me a list.

 

[NotWorthy]

The replacement of Judas.

Let his Bishopric (Episcopate, office) another take. The Apostle Judas held an office. What does any entity do when an office/position is vacant? They select a replacement. Every apostle was replaced with a bishop upon their death.

But the most telling is 2nd Timothy, chapter 2.

1 *** So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 ****** And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.***

What you have is
1st generation - St. Paul giving authority to
2nd generation - St. Timothy, so that he can entrust it to
3rd generation - “faithful people” who will have the ability to teach
4th generation - “others”.

This is 4 generations of Apostolic Succesion, which is something the early Church even understood. St. Clement, an early bishop of Rome who knew St. Peter and St. Paul spoke of this Apostolic authority in correcting the Church of Corinth (in 94 AD).

St. Ignatius, another bishop who knew St. Peter and St. Paul, attested to the bishop of having the authority of Jesus Christ (in 110 AD).

Neither of these two writings were rejected by the Early Church. Rather they were venerated. St. Clement’s writings were read in the Mass for over 100 years in the Church in Corinth. St. Ignatius’ letters were distributed and venerated throughout the Catholic Church.

 

[Luke65]

I need specific new… fresh… buttons to push with them… if you have more aids or souces i can use through the bible which is their turf…then please send me a list.

It looks like you need Scripture Catholic! Click on that link, and I think those first few topics will help you a whole lot. If you still need more, keep asking! God bless.

 

[lutherlic]

If the Church ended with the death of the last Apostle, where did the Holy Bible come from? It was canonized centuries later. A thousand years after that Martin Luther, upon his own non-existent authority, created the Protestant Bible by copying the Catholic Bible and effectively removing parts he didn’t like.

If scripture interprets scripture (which is to say no interpretation is necessary), then why do Protestant denominations disagree over so much from each other? Why are Protestant denominations split so strongly internally between themselves? When their pastor gives a long sermon on scripture, is he interpreting it? If so, what gives him that authority? If not, wouldn’t that time be better use by everyone reading scripture for themselves?

 

[Mark77]

If the Church ended with the death of the last Apostle, where did the Holy Bible come from? It was canonized centuries later. A thousand years after that Martin Luther, upon his own non-existent authority, created the Protestant Bible by copying the Catholic Bible and effectively removing parts he didn’t like.

If scripture interprets scripture (which is to say no interpretation is necessary), then why do Protestant denominations disagree over so much from each other? Why are Protestant denominations split so strongly internally between themselves? When their pastor gives a long sermon on scripture, is he interpreting it? If so, what gives him that authority? If not, wouldn’t that time be better use by everyone reading scripture for themselves?

Exactly!

These same well meaning yet ignorant people who rely on Sola Scriptura have spawned over 20,000 protestant denominations, causing confusion &among Christians & non-Christians alike.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[SusTre]

The replacement of Judas.

Let his Bishopric (Episcopate, office) another take. The Apostle Judas held an office. What does any entity do when an office/position is vacant? They select a replacement. Every apostle was replaced with a bishop upon their death.

But the most telling is 2nd Timothy, chapter 2.
What you have is
1st generation - St. Paul giving authority to
2nd generation - St. Timothy, so that he can entrust it to
3rd generation - “faithful people” who will have the ability to teach
4th generation - “others”.

This is 4 generations of Apostolic Succesion, which is something the early Church even understood. St. Clement, an early bishop of Rome who knew St. Peter and St. Paul spoke of this Apostolic authority in correcting the Church of Corinth (in 94 AD).

St. Ignatius, another bishop who knew St. Peter and St. Paul, attested to the bishop of having the authority of Jesus Christ (in 110 AD).

Neither of these two writings were rejected by the Early Church. Rather they were venerated. St. Clement’s writings were read in the Mass for over 100 years in the Church in Corinth. St. Ignatius’ letters were distributed and venerated throughout the Catholic Church.

i get it…all those points … they just dont even accept anything outside the apostles so i have to work on their turf---- scripture… i know what you said and believe me, i use it all too… i guess frustration sometimes sets in because they want to talk the bible (they are my boyfriends family) but they just don’t realize it isnt in a vacuum…

 

[Gracealone]

Actually I think “Scripture interprets scripture” is being misunderstood. The way I use it and I believe its is the same in this instance, to refrase: is letting scripture tell us what other scripture is saying.
Passages that are harder to understand can become easier to understand when we investigate around the difficult bit in the passage by reading before and after, but also when we look at how the bible talks about the same subject matter elsewhere it can reveal to us the meaning of this difficult passage/show us what the author of the book/passage intended their audience (eg letters-early church) to understand.

Christians as we all realise (because the bible tells us) are still sinful people and all of us because of sin misunderstand and skew scripture (and be complacent with checking what we’re saying is what the author is actually saying), and can also sinfully add new things and laws (ie christian must be = Christ + do this or do that…) instead of letting the bible “tell us” what the actual truth is.

 

[NoelFitz]

NW
You wrote:

St. Clement, an early bishop of Rome who knew St. Peter and St. Paul spoke of this Apostolic authority in correcting the Church of Corinth (in 94 AD).

St. Ignatius, another bishop who knew St. Peter and St. Paul, attested to the bishop of having the authority of Jesus Christ (in 110 AD).

The above is debatable. The dates have been queried.

Did Clement and Ignatius know Peter and Paul?

I think a better answer might be probably, possibly or *not known. *

 

[NoelFitz]

I have looked up the references to Peter and and Paul in the writings of Clement and Ignatius.

No where is there any indication that either Peter or Paul were personally known by Clement or Ignatius.

For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection; (2) and when he came to **Peter **and those with him, he said to them: “Take hold of me; handle me and see that I am not a disembodied demon.

There was** Peter**, who, because of unrighteous jealousy, endured not one or two but many trials, and thus having given his testimony went to his appointed place of glory.

I do not give you orders like** Peter and Paul:** they were apostles, I am a convict; they were free, but I am even now still a slave.

You are the highway of those who are being killed for God’s sake; you are fellow initiates of Paul, who was sanctified, who was approved, who is deservedly blessed—may I be found in his footsteps when I reach God!

Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle. (2) What did he first write to you in the “beginning of the gospel”?

Because of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the way to the prize for patient endurance.

1 Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers : Greek Texts and English Translations (Updated ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 187.
2 loc. cit., 35.
3 loc. cit.,171.
4 loc. cit.,145.
5 loc. cit.,83.
6 loc. cit.,35.

 

[Cruxis117]

Actually I think “Scripture interprets scripture” is being misunderstood. The way I use it and I believe its is the same in this instance, to refrase: is letting scripture tell us what other scripture is saying.
Passages that are harder to understand can become easier to understand when we investigate around the difficult bit in the passage by reading before and after, but also when we look at how the bible talks about the same subject matter elsewhere it can reveal to us the meaning of this difficult passage/show us what the author of the book/passage intended their audience (eg letters-early church) to understand.

Christians as we all realise (because the bible tells us) are still sinful people and all of us because of sin misunderstand and skew scripture (and be complacent with checking what we’re saying is what the author is actually saying), and can also sinfully add new things and laws (ie christian must be = Christ + do this or do that…) instead of letting the bible “tell us” what the actual truth is.

Well, the problem with that, is that every Protestant denomination lets “Scripture” interpret scripture, but then come up with different things because they put their own interpretations along with the “Scripture”. As well as the fact that, granted, we can look at the Old Testament and the New Testament and find similarities and congruent meanings in certain words, but at the same time, To say that to interpret A, we must look at B, but how do we interpret B? Look at C, what about C? It becomes a fallacy. And, if we are to understand the power of scripture, we must ultimately remember that the Church existed before any form of the bible existed, and that “the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth”, not Scripture alone, but Sacred Tradition as well. This doesn’t mean that Scripture is any less sacred, or any less essential. But there is no biblical proof that states that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, and therefore can interpret itself. Sola Scriptura and “scripture interpreting scripture” happen to be anti-biblical. As I’ve heard it, Christ did not give us the Scriptures, he gave us the Church.

As I have said, this in no way is to demean scripture or to claim that it is any less sacred or important, but the problem is that you never have “Scripture interpreting Scripture” nor do you have “Sola Scriptura”, because every individual who reads the Bible develops a private interpretation, when without guidance and understanding from the Church, and this has led to many heretical sects of “Christianity”.

The other issue is where you mention

and can also sinfully add new things and laws (ie christian must be = Christ + do this or do that…) instead of letting the bible “tell us” what the actual truth is.

Well, that’s what the Catholic Church does. From Baptism to Reconciliation (or Confession), these important sacraments have been instituted by Christ. While faith in Christ is very, very essential, it’s the basis of the entire Catholic and Christian faith, it is by far, for Catholics, only one side of an important truth. The other side are all of the teachings that have been taught to us. A Christian, by definition follows Christ, but to follow Christ, you must understand and follow his teachings, as well as the laws and teachings that have been derived from scripture by the Church. Even Jesus told his disciples to follow the laws and teachings of the Pharisees, because those teachings were important, whereas to not do what the Pharisees were doing, because they were abusing their duty and sinning, the same way the few wayward popes and priests (out of the hundreds of popes and thousands of priests) that have kept true to the faith and the teachings.

So, in essence, what I am saying is merely that the Church does not “sinfully add” anything, but rather, as the foundation and pillar of truth they are, interpret, understand, teach, and live the Scriptures, and show what the “Truth” is.

 

[NotWorthy]

The above is debatable. The dates have been queried.

Fine, but none of the queries have born fruit. These are the dates that have been accepted for the longest time.

Did Clement and Ignatius know Peter and Paul?

I think a better answer might be probably, possibly or *not known. *

I think a better answer is “why doubt the man that made the claim”?

Wow, is this discussion deja vu’?

 

[lutherlic]

Actually I think “Scripture interprets scripture” is being misunderstood. The way I use it and I believe its is the same in this instance, to refrase: is letting scripture tell us what other scripture is saying.
Passages that are harder to understand can become easier to understand when we investigate around the difficult bit in the passage by reading before and after, but also when we look at how the bible talks about the same subject matter elsewhere it can reveal to us the meaning of this difficult passage/show us what the author of the book/passage intended their audience (eg letters-early church) to understand.

Christians as we all realise (because the bible tells us) are still sinful people and all of us because of sin misunderstand and skew scripture (and be complacent with checking what we’re saying is what the author is actually saying), and can also sinfully add new things and laws (ie christian must be = Christ + do this or do that…) instead of letting the bible “tell us” what the actual truth is.

Your point is valid in that scripture must be taken in full context of other scripture, historical setting, style of prose, original language, etc. HOWEVER, even with all that, by highly educated theologians who are Bible scholars, who are language experts, with advanced degrees in history, who are unquestionably faithful and sincere - they will still individually come to totally different theories and conclusions. It is not that their work is unimportant, just that they alone can not accurately determine the truth. Neither can the rest of us with our lesser skills. Jesus created His Church, guided by the Magisterium, for this purpose and that is the only way to know the truth.

 

[NoelFitz]

NW,

I would not query dates too much.

I would suggest Clement around 96-97, and Ignatius around 107-110. These differ little from your dates.

Some would claim Ignatius as approx 160. But recently Barnes has written forcefully that Ignatius should be around 140.

In the absence of strong arguments I prefer accepted conclusions.

But I have my doubts about Ignatius and Clement knowing Peter and Paul.

However I do like to read posts about the Apostolic Fathers, as they are among my current interests, along with the PEs.

 

[onenow1]

Hi All, Maybe understanding Peter will help.

Here:2 Peter 1​

19 And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit

And: 2 Peter 3​

15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matt. 28, below should make it abundently clear, a teacher is needed just as Jesus, commanded.

---

18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Jesus did not tell the Apostles to go out and write a book, exactly for the question being asked here. Scripture Plus ? He knew confusion would erupt because of human pride,and that’s why VS 20 was commanded. { Teach} Them.

God Bless All
onenow1

 

[twinc]

Hi All, Maybe understanding Peter will help.

Here:2 Peter 1​

19 And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit

And: 2 Peter 3​

15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matt. 28, below should make it abundently clear, a teacher is needed just as Jesus, commanded.

---

18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Jesus did not tell the Apostles to go out and write a book, exactly for the question being asked here. Scripture Plus ? He knew confusion would erupt because of human pride,and that’s why VS 20 was commanded. { Teach} Them.

God Bless All
onenow1

No doubt Jesus did say teach them,He did not say don’t teach them or confuse them so that they do need to search or consult the scriptures to see if these things be so.There are a lot of other things about that are not necessary or required for salvation"but these things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the son of God and believing you may have life in His name"[Jn.20:31] - twinc

 

[NHInsider]

How do I help some friends and family come to understand that The Church is needed for the interpretation of Scripture? I had a discussion with them and one of their family this weekend and they just went through the bible but when I tried to show them other verses they bounced to others and basically saym “Scripture interprets scripture”… That is totally hard to defend for me because they don’t accept there was any Church after The Apostles all died. That it was basically a “God Inspired” Text that was somehow protected to what we have today. Whew!!! What a leap of “Faith” that is…no pun… What can I add to this conversation? Anybody?

I recommend you find a little book by Mark Shea called By What Authority?

Really, this is why the Scripture Alone, Scripture Interprets Scripture, Scripture is the Final Authority arguments are untenable. For centuries - centuries - there was no New Testament. How can Christianity depend soley upon a book that didn’t exist in definitive form until almost 500 years after the Ascension, or 400 years after the death of the last Apostle? Not to mention that the Faith spread throughout the known world at a time when books were huge, cumbersome and prohibitively expensive, and the vast majority of the people in the world were illiterate?

And how did that book become definitive? How do we know that the Gospel of Thomas is heretical? Why don’t we follow the teachings of the Gospel of the Hebrews? How come the Shepherd of Hermas isn’t in the New Testament, when many of the second century Christians believed it was inspired? etc etc. All because the successors to the Apostles determined by their Apostolic Authority which books were true to the Apostolic faith.

No Church, no Bible - that’s the historic fact.

 

[onenow1]

No doubt Jesus did say teach them,He did not say don’t teach them or confuse them so that they do need to search or consult the scriptures to see if these things be so.There are a lot of other things about that are not necessary or required for salvation"but these things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the son of God and believing you may have life in His name"[Jn.20:31] - twinc

Exactly Fits perfectly.

Here: 2Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable] for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Thoughts : Jesus came down to clarify the OT scriptures, as such he commanded the Apostles to do the same, through his Church, where the keys were deposited and held by Peter.

We must believe the words of Jesus, as He said.{Matt.Matthew 16:18 " And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. "}

God Bless
onenow1

 

[joe370]

Hey SusTre…

How do I help some friends and family come to understand that The Church is needed for the interpretation of Scripture? I had a discussion with them and one of their family this weekend and they just went through the bible but when I tried to show them other verses they bounced to others and basically saym** “Scripture interprets scripture”…**

. That is totally hard to defend for me because** they don’t accept there was any Church after The Apostles all died.** That it was basically a “God Inspired” Text that was somehow protected to what we have today. Whew!!! What a leap of “Faith” that is…no pun… What can I add to this conversation? Anybody?

Aside from that not making any logical sense at all, appealing to scripture as the final authority for interpreting scripture in no way discredits the very church founded by God (on Pentecost, in Jerusalem circa AD33 forever guided into all truth) - the very church that gave the canon of scripture to the world in the first place.

Ask them: How is it that you can believe this collection of books found in your bible has any binding authority without recognizing the authority of the Church from which these books came?

Bottom line. if the CC has been teaching erroneously for centuries regarding things such as the IC or the AOM then it’s time to consider the idea that the CC could have taught erroneously in the 4th and 5th century when they finally collected, selected, compiled and eventually codified the written canon, in the midst of many so called canonical books and apocryphal books making there way around the known world. It was from within **the CC that doctrinal truth **regarding the correct inclusion of books in your bible and the correct exclusion of books from your bible - was revealed. Outside the CC was nothing but one splinter sect after another teaching all kinds of heretical doctrine. Say to them, In other words guys, your NT could have books in the bible that are not, and never were, meant to be part of the inspired word of god, especially considering the fact that you guys think that the CC added 7 spurious books to the OT; this just adds more fodder for your claims, that the NT is error free (thanks to the authoritative proclamation of the CC) - all the while claiming that other authoritative proclamations by the CC are spurious at best.

Either the CC is right on a wholesale level, doctrinally speaking, thanks to the guidance of the holy spirit, the spirit of truth, Who is guiding the CC into all truth, and safeguarding the deposit of faith (be it word or letter) - from within and without, or, doctrinal truth was never attainable from the very beginning. This door doesn’t swing both ways guys.

Ask them to let scripture interpret scripture regarding the following and they would soon realize how ineffectual that man-made tradition really is at resolving anything:

In one corner we have some isolated autonomous churches, eg Evangelical churches - that defer to the bible as their final authority for doctrinal clarification and authoritative resolution, and they come away from the bible believing that Jesus was speaking in metaphor regarding the Eucharist. In the opposite corner we have some isolated autonomous churches as well, eg, some Lutheran churches - deferring to their bible as their final authority for doctrinal clarification and authoritative resolution and they too come away from the same bible believing the exact opposite.

How can one know who’s interpretation is correct regarding the preceding impasse, if in fact the bible is to be the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal differences…if in fact scripture interprets scripture???

Peace my friend.