Scripture to interpret Scripture

[exiled]

I’ve just had a brief conversation with a relative about how to read the Bible. My uncle is a Bible Christian who told me to make sure not to add to the text, and to let Scripture interpret Scripture.
Now, I may be wrong, but seeing the polygamy thread with the Mormons in another forum got me to thinking…
There is nothing in OT Scripture that tells us that “looking at a woman lustfully”, a man has already committed adultery with her in his heart. So, if the Jews stuck to SS, then they would be perfectly within the bounds of the law to fantasize all they wanted, right? There was no text, after all, to explicit state that lustful thoughts were wrong.
So the spirit of the law had to be understood in order to practice the law as one should.
This is the same in the NT, imo. It is not explicitly stated, for instance, that Mary is our mother, but it does follow that in the Christian family that Jesus Christ established, that she should be our mother. It is not laid out that He assumed His mother into Heaven, but it certainly follows the spirit of love, family, obedience, glory, etc that the NT is meant to convey.

 

[Della]

It is the same for doctrines and dogmas that Bible Christians take for granted, such as the orthodox definition of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the nature of the resurrection, etc. The Bible alone cannot tell us certain things, and was never meant to. It was and is a part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church from which the NT sprang and within which the whole of the Bible must be understood.

 

[ForwardProgress]

I never really found that most scripture (save for some obscure OT stuff) really needed interpreting…it’s not like it says:

“Hear thy pigs and cattle, the call to be rocks of fortitude and strength for the non-gentile humans to whom all providence in the galactic empire’s neural faculties has been given for the mental migrane majority…blah blah”

It says love your neighbor as yourself, hear and act on the word of God, always be ready for the end, etc…no need to ‘interpret’ that.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

I’ve just had a brief conversation with a relative about how to read the Bible. My uncle is a Bible Christian who told me to make sure not to add to the text, and to let Scripture interpret Scripture.

Any Protestant will say something to this effect. Either that we should let Scripture interpret Scripture or that the Holy Spirit will guide you into understanding or something similar. This all stems from their idea of Sola Scriptura. It’s their way of saying “we don’t need the Church.” There are lots of good threads here that deal with that issue and some really good articles here in the “Library” section.

catholic.com/library/scripture_tradition.asp

One of the best ways to refute Sola Scriptura, I think, is to simply point out that it doesn’t seem to work in practice. Baptists, Presbyterians and Church of Christ congragations all rely on Sola Scriptura and let “Scripture interpret Scripture” and they have 3 very different and opposing understandings of how Salvation takes place. And those are only 3 of the thousands of different Protestant denominations. Now if Scripture could interpret Scripture or if all we needed was the Holy Spirit this would not occur, would it? Instead all of the Bible Christians would have a uniform understanding of doctrine.

 

[Tomster]

Any Protestant will say something to this effect. Either that we should let Scripture interpret Scripture or that the Holy Spirit will guide you into understanding or something similar. This all stems from their idea of Sola Scriptura. It’s their way of saying “we don’t need the Church.” There are lots of good threads here that deal with that issue and some really good articles here in the “Library” section.

catholic.com/library/scripture_tradition.asp

One of the best ways to refute Sola Scriptura, I think, is to simply point out that it doesn’t seem to work in practice. Baptists, Presbyterians and Church of Christ congragations all rely on Sola Scriptura and let “Scripture interpret Scripture” and they have 3 very different and opposing understandings of how Salvation takes place. And those are only 3 of the thousands of different Protestant denominations. Now if Scripture could interpret Scripture or if all we needed was the Holy Spirit this would not occur, would it? Instead all of the Bible Christians would have a uniform understanding of doctrine.

. . . . and all of their ministers would be out of business.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I never really found that most scripture (save for some obscure OT stuff) really needed interpreting…it’s not like it says:

It says love your neighbor as yourself, hear and act on the word of God, always be ready for the end, etc…no need to ‘interpret’ that.

In practise it does need interpretation. Some Christians take a very militantly anti-homosexual stance, for instance, whilst others ordain homosexuals as bishops. Both would claim to be basing their actions on the Bible.

A fair reading of the text will show you that neither of these interpretations can really be sanctioned. However it won’t tell you exactly what Jesus would have said on the issue.

 

[Contarini]

Any Protestant will say something to this effect.

Like all statements beginning “Any Protestant,” this one is highly inaccurate. I certainly think we need the Church, and I am not alone in this regard. Anglicans and Methodists (at least many Methodist theologians) would agree, and a good few Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc. would as well. Shucks, even some Baptists would say that we need the Church to interpret Scripture. The question is whether we need an infallible Church.

Of course Scripture interprets Scripture. The problem is: which Scripture interprets which Scripture? Do you interpret Heb. 6 and 10 (which clearly say that one can lose salvation and indeed that this loss is irretrievable!) by passages such as Romans 8 and John 10 (which allegedly say that Christ will keep all believers from losing their salvation), or vice versa. Do you interpret the passages that seem to teach baptismal regeneration by [your interpretation of] passages that speak of salvation by faith in exclusive terms? (I’m not defending this, I’m describing what a lot of folks do.)

You’re absolutely right that the strict SS view won’t work. What Catholic apologists will not understand (because it would scuttle their enterprise) is that this strict, simplistic view is not the classic view of formal Protestant theology, and thus they cannot simply oppose it to a reliance on the infallible Magisterium.

A case can be made that the view of authority held by fundamentalist Protestants and the view held by most “Catholic apologists” are mirror images of each other–equally simplistic and almost equally flawed (your view is definitely better in some respects).

There is no one, single authority that can be invoked to settle all issues. There is no escape from the hard work of interpretation. There is no escape from the need for humility and charity.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[DeFide]

Like all statements beginning “Any Protestant,” this one is highly inaccurate. I certainly think we need the Church, and I am not alone in this regard. Anglicans and Methodists (at least many Methodist theologians) would agree, and a good few Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc. would as well. Shucks, even some Baptists would say that we need the Church to interpret Scripture. The question is whether we need an infallible Church.

…
You’re absolutely right that the strict SS view won’t work. What Catholic apologists will not understand (because it would scuttle their enterprise) is that this strict, simplistic view is not the classic view of formal Protestant theology, and thus they cannot simply oppose it to a reliance on the infallible Magisterium.

A case can be made that the view of authority held by fundamentalist Protestants and the view held by most “Catholic apologists” are mirror images of each other–equally simplistic and almost equally flawed (your view is definitely better in some respects).

There is no one, single authority that can be invoked to settle all issues. There is no escape from the hard work of interpretation. There is no escape from the need for humility and charity.

Edwin, would you care to actually define Sola Scriptura, lest we address your view of it wrongly?

 

[Sixtus]

let Scripture interpret Scripture.

That is folly and a dangerous thing to do!

That is not the way Scripture is intended to be used. By so doing, one can come up with an infinitely variable amount of interpretations. That is often the reason why there are upwards of 33,000 interpretations of Sacred Scripture.

Scripture interpreted by Her whose Scriptures they are

 

[JoeyWarren]

In a sense Contarini is right. Let’s illustrate by using a quote from “Where we got the Bible” by Lighthouse.

“The New Testament lays hidden in the Old”
“The Old Testament is revealed in the New”

It is not always that clear. I would not agree that a NT verse would interpret another NT verse.

But I would agree that the NT interprets the Old and the OT interprets the New.

Point in Case. The part in Matthew about the Peter and the Rock and the Keys of Heaven and the power to bind and loose needs and/or requires the passage from Isaiah to interpret what Jesus was doing with Peter.

Just my two cents…

 

[toothdigger]

In a sense Contarini is right. Let’s illustrate by using a quote from “Where we got the Bible” by Lighthouse.

“The New Testament lays hidden in the Old”
“The Old Testament is revealed in the New”

It is not always that clear. I would not agree that a NT verse would interpret another NT verse.

But I would agree that the NT interprets the Old and the OT interprets the New.

Point in Case. The part in Matthew about the Peter and the Rock and the Keys of Heaven and the power to bind and loose needs and/or requires the passage from Isaiah to interpret what Jesus was doing with Peter.

Just my two cents…

Forgive me, but to which verses in Isaiah are you referring?

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, would you care to actually define Sola Scriptura, lest we address your view of it wrongly?

I don’t use the term “Sola Scriptura.” I address it when Catholics use it.

The classic Protestant view (which I do not hold) would be that all public revelation has been written down (since about A.D. 100) in Scripture, and that any believer can come to understand the essential points of this revelation through a “due use of the ordinary means.” This of course would include listening to sermons, consulting commentaries, talking with wise Christian friends, etc. However, in the end any person who follows these means with the right spirit can expect to be guided into the true understanding and does not need to submit his (properly formed) understanding to an external authority. (This is rather analogous to the Catholic view of conscience. If you come to the wrong conclusion it’s because your conscience has not been properly formed.) This view can of course be slanted in more than one direction–hence my statement that *some *(not all) Presbyterians would agree that you need the Church to interpret Scripture rightly. Of course, they would say that you need the Church as a guide rather than as an infallible authority. But to hear a lot of them talk the Church’s past authoritative decisions are pretty close to infallible.

The original Anglican (and hence moderate Reformed) view found in the 39 Articles essentially agrees with this but is phrased more briefly and modestly–whatever “cannot be proved” from Scripture is not necessary to salvation. Is this the same as the Reformed view or slightly more Catholic? We could argue about it. Certainly Anglicans have always given the Church the authority to order matters *not *essential to salvation.

However, most Anglicans (and many Methodists) today would interpret their tradition in a much more Catholic direction, arguing that in fact we cannot interpret Scripture rightly without the guidance of tradition (this is certainly the view that I myself hold). This still leaves room for the material sufficiency of Scripture, which all but the extreme Anglo-Catholics would hold (and which I lean toward, though I’m not sure about it).

I think the key question really is: could you possibly reach a point at which you honestly didn’t see the evidence for a belief but accepted it anyway because the Church (however defined) said so. I believe this, as do Anglo-Catholics. Most Protestants are very uncomfortable with the idea. If anything can be defined as “Sola Scriptura,” I think it’s this–the view that while the Church may be necessary to convince you, you need not and must not accept as true anything of which you are not convinced.

This, however, is not the same thing as the view that the Church is not necessary. Unless, that is, you see the Church solely as an external, arbitrary authority. I hope you do not hold such a shriveled view of our Holy Mother!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

That is folly and a dangerous thing to do!

Then why did the Fathers do it all the time! You can hardly read a page or two of the Fathers without running into “intertextual” interpretation.

Yes, and by Her who is (by Her own admission) the servant of the Word which is written down in Scripture! Scripture is the Church’s in the sense that Scripture is the Church’s master.

More to the point of the thread, your statement does not in the least contradict the idea of interpreting Scripture by Scripture. On the contrary, we need the Church precisely to tell us which Scriptures are to be used to interpret which Scriptures, and how.

In Christ,

Edwin

[/QUOTE]

 

[Todd_Easton]

Forgive me, but to which verses in Isaiah are you referring?

I think JoeyWarren was referring to Isaiah 22:15-25, which describes the office of the steward over the royal household during the time of, I think, King Hezekiah. This steward was in charge of the royal household when the King and the Queen-mother were out of town. By using similar language, it seems Jesus was establishing Peter in a similar office, the steward over the Master’s household while the Master was away, Luke 12:41-48.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I think JoeyWarren was referring to Isaiah 22:15-25, which describes the office of the steward over the royal household during the time of, I think, King Hezekiah. This steward was in charge of the royal household when the King and the Queen-mother were out of town. By using similar language, it seems Jesus was establishing Peter in a similar office, the steward over the Master’s household while the Master was away, Luke 12:41-48.

yes indeed…

 

[DeFide]

Like all statements beginning “Any Protestant,” this one is highly inaccurate. …

Of course Scripture interprets Scripture.

LegalEagle said that any Protestant will say something to the effect that you should let Scripture interpret Scripture, and in the process of disagreeing with him, you reiterate what he said.

That’s why I was trying to get some definitions from you so I could p(name removed by moderator)oint why you think he made such an inaccurate statement.

 

[toothdigger]

I think JoeyWarren was referring to Isaiah 22:15-25, which describes the office of the steward over the royal household during the time of, I think, King Hezekiah. This steward was in charge of the royal household when the King and the Queen-mother were out of town. By using similar language, it seems Jesus was establishing Peter in a similar office, the steward over the Master’s household while the Master was away, Luke 12:41-48.

Thanks; in reading both the passage in Isaiah and then the one in Luke, it seems that both the ‘managers’ or ‘stewards’ were found wanting - ‘the peg driven into the firm place will give way…’ in Isaiah and in Luke, in the parable, Jesus implies that the manager might be found beating his servants and that God will as a result ‘cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers…’

Was Jesus really speaking directly to Peter here in Luke with a warning from Isaiah about good stewardship as well as telling him of the ‘keys’ to the kingdom?

But, in Joey Warren’s post, he mentions Matthew, not Luke… so… is it the same parable? Which verses, please? Thanks!

 

[Alexius]

Sixtus;1876033:

That is folly and a dangerous thing to do!

Then why did the Fathers do it all the time! You can hardly read a page or two of the Fathers without running into “intertextual” interpretation.

.

More to the point of the thread, your statement does not in the least contradict the idea of interpreting Scripture by Scripture. On the contrary, we need the Church precisely to tell us which Scriptures are to be used to interpret which Scriptures, and how.

In Christ,

Edwin

Sorry, but I disagree that Scripture is the master of the Church. Scripture was written by the Church, for the Church, to be used within the Church. Scripture is the prime piece of Holy Tradition, but even that is used within the Church.

Prays and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Todd_Easton]

But, in Joey Warren’s post, he mentions Matthew, not Luke… so… is it the same parable? Which verses, please? Thanks!

Although there is a parallel passage to Luke 12:41-48 in Matthew 24:45-51, I think JoeyWarren was actually referring to Matthew 16:18-19. In Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus promises to one day give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter so that whatever he would bind or loose on earth would be bound or loosed in heaven and Jesus refers to Peter as the rock upon whom He would built His church. This is similar to the language used in Isaiah 22 concerning the office of the steward over the royal household who was given the key of David so that whatever he would open or shut would remain so and the Lord refers to the steward as a supporting peg in a sure spot upon whom all the glory of his family would hang. The chief difference between the Old and the New being that the Old Testament steward, the peg fixed in a sure spot, would one day break off and fall and the weight that hung from it would be done away with but, in the New Testament, not even the gates of Hades would prevail against the Peter, the rock, and the Church built upon him. This difference in not because Peter was naturally better than the steward of the Old Testament but, because of the prayer of Jesus, Peter would receive supernatural grace so that his faith would not fail. (Luke 22:32)

 

[toothdigger]

Although there is a parallel passage to Luke 12:41-48 in Matthew 24:45-51, I think JoeyWarren was actually referring to Matthew 16:18-19. In Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus promises to one day give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter so that whatever he would bind or loose on earth would be bound or loosed in heaven and Jesus refers to Peter as the rock upon whom He would built His church. This is similar to the language used in Isaiah 22 concerning the office of the steward over the royal household who was given the key of David so that whatever he would open or shut would remain so and the Lord refers to the steward as a supporting peg in a sure spot upon whom all the glory of his family would hang. The chief difference between the Old and the New being that the Old Testament steward, the peg fixed in a sure spot, would one day break off and fall and the weight that hung from it would be done away with but, in the New Testament, not even the gates of Hades would prevail against the Peter, the rock, and the Church built upon him. This difference in not because Peter was naturally better than the steward of the Old Testament but, because of the prayer of Jesus, Peter would receive supernatural grace so that his faith would not fail. (Luke 22:32)

Now, that makes more sense to me. Thanks. And, looking back to JoeyWarren’s original post, he does mention Peter binding and loosing as expressed by Jesus in Matthew, not in Luke. Again… makes a lot more sense now that we’ve got the correct verses…