Scripture to interpret Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter exiled
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeyWarren said:
We really have gotten on topic.
Click to expand...
I hope that is a compliment…

Do you have other examples of the O.T. revealing the N.T. other than some of the more obvious ones such as the Psalms and Isaiah?

I would be interested to read these…

Thanks. 😉
 
toothdigger said:
I hope that is a compliment…

Do you have other examples of the O.T. revealing the N.T. other than some of the more obvious ones such as the Psalms and Isaiah?

I would be interested to read these…

Thanks. 😉
Click to expand...
the whole of the Marian Doctrines support this idea as well. There a numerous foreshadowings in the OT that are revealed in the New. Catholicism is based partly on recognizing those foreshadowings.

What we recognize as foreshadowing, many Protestants say they are just coincidences. With God there is no coincidences.
 
DeFide said:
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.
Click to expand...
His inaccuracy was in saying that this process (as taught by all Protestants) doesn’t involve the Church.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
His inaccuracy was in saying that this process (as taught by all Protestants) doesn’t involve the Church.
Click to expand...
Perhaps my error was in using in using the term “any Protestant” thereby implying that each and every Protestant would give a similar response. Obviously, we can’t expect every single solitary Protestant to give the exact same response, but…

The OP was referring specifically to “Bible Christians” which, as I understand their beliefs, do in fact reject all authority–especially the authority of the Catholic Church–other than the Bible to which their moniker refers.

But then again, I think you did prove my point in your previous posts. You repeatedly said that the Church was necessary to proper doctrinal understanding and then promptly said, “unless, of course, you disagree.” Thereby implying that it is the individual beliver whose opinion must be trusted in the end. In my view (someone please chime in here if I’m wrong) MOST–not all–Protestants by taking the view described above have set themselves up as the final arbiters of doctrine. Thus, deposing the successor of Peter and enthroning themselves. In some cases John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Wesley or some other theologian will be consulted on difficult doctrinal questions. BUT in the end, as you yourself have stated, the ultimate question is, “What is my own personal opinion? Do I agree?”

Thus, we’re back to where we started. Protestants don’t need the Church to authoritatively settle difficult questions. Where does that leave the Protestant community? If you are a Baptist–salvation by faith alone. Calvinist? Predestination. Church of Christ? Combination of faith and works. Pentacostal? You must speak in tounges as evidence that you have received the Holy Ghost. Or any number of other formulations which can vary from one congregation to the next. Even from one person to the next. Most Protestants I know look for a “Church home” by seeing which local pastor’s doctrinal teaching agrees with their already formed opinions. How’s that for not needing a Church?

After re-reading the above some of it seems quite snippy. Sorry, that was not my intent. Please tell me where I’m wrong.
 
Legal_Eagle said:
But then again, I think you did prove my point in your previous posts. You repeatedly said that the Church was necessary to proper doctrinal understanding and then promptly said, “unless, of course, you disagree.” Thereby implying that it is the individual beliver whose opinion must be trusted in the end.
Click to expand...
But that doesn’t mean that the Church is unnecessary, which is what you claimed.

I’m not claiming that Protestants need the Church as much as Catholics do or in the same way. I’m saying that they do need it, and the more traditional ones admit this explicitly.

Your post wasn’t snippy, BTW. Not by my standards anyway:thumbsup:

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
But that doesn’t mean that the Church is unnecessary, which is what you claimed.

I’m not claiming that Protestants need the Church as much as Catholics do or in the same way. I’m saying that they do need it, and the more traditional ones admit this explicitly.
Click to expand...
Well…yeah, but…There’s needing the Church and then there’s needing the Church.

Protestants, like you, who acknowledge needing the Church say that they need to associate with a body of believers to strengthen their own faith, to enjoy “fellowship” with other Christians, to serve as a safe harbor in the world and a strong foundation in times of trouble or doubt. Kind of like a college fraternity with a steeple.

Catholics would say that they need the Church in the ways listed above too, but those are really just icing on the cake. Catholics mainly need the Church to serve as the deposit of faith (Scripture and Tradition), to serve as the final arbiter of doctrinal questions, to maintain the unity of the Christian family, to perpetuate Christ’s REAL presence on the earth through the Sacraments and to serve as the visible sign of the invisible reality of the Kingdom of God.

Sooooooooooooooo…back to my original point. When one gets an admonition from a “Bible Christian” to let Scripture interpret Scripture there is a lot that lies behind that advice. Perhaps the OP’s uncle was giving just him a pointer in exigesis. But most likely, knowing that his nephew was Catholic he was probably trying to tell him that he didn’t need the Catholic Church to interpret the Bible for him, nor did he need to rely on anything outside the Bible to understand it. Therefore, he was probably encouraging his nephew to follow the Sola Scriptura path. Thus, my post.

So, Contarini, what is that you mean when you say that you need the Church?
 
Sooooooooooooooo…back to my original point. When one gets an admonition from a “Bible Christian” to let Scripture interpret Scripture there is a lot that lies behind that advice. Perhaps the OP’s uncle was giving just him a pointer in exigesis. But most likely, knowing that his nephew was Catholic he was probably trying to tell him that he didn’t need the Catholic Church to interpret the Bible for him, nor did he need to rely on anything outside the Bible to understand it. Therefore, he was probably encouraging his nephew to follow the Sola Scriptura path. Thus, my post.

Bingo! That is exactly what my uncle is trying to do, IMO. Now, the truth be told, I do hope that this exchange with him spurs thought in my uncle’s mind that ultimately leads him back to the faith he was raised in and then rejected.
Funny, the passages we were discussing had nothing to do with any doctrine that divides us, but I think my uncle felt it necessary to start laying the foundation for SS.
 
Legal_Eagle said:
Well…yeah, but…There’s needing the Church and then there’s needing the Church.

Protestants, like you, who acknowledge needing the Church say that they need to associate with a body of believers to strengthen their own faith, to enjoy “fellowship” with other Christians, to serve as a safe harbor in the world and a strong foundation in times of trouble or doubt. Kind of like a college fraternity with a steeple.
Click to expand...
No that’s NOT what I mean! I wouldn’t be a Christian without the Church. I wouldn’t have a clue about anything without the Church! I need the Church like a dying man in the desert needs water. Please don’t trivialize this.

Admittedly I’m much closer to Catholicism than most, but you clearly haven’t grasped what I am talking about when I say that Protestants need the Church. You see everything as an either/or.
Catholics would say that they need the Church in the ways listed above too, but those are really just icing on the cake. Catholics mainly need the Church to serve as the deposit of faith (Scripture and Tradition), to serve as the final arbiter of doctrinal questions, to maintain the unity of the Christian family, to perpetuate Christ’s REAL presence on the earth through the Sacraments and to serve as the visible sign of the invisible reality of the Kingdom of God.
Click to expand...
I need the Church in all those ways too. . . .
So, Contarini, what is that you mean when you say that you need the Church?
Click to expand...
Everything you said!

Edwin
 
exiled said:
Sooooooooooooooo…back to my original point. When one gets an admonition from a “Bible Christian” to let Scripture interpret Scripture there is a lot that lies behind that advice. Perhaps the OP’s uncle was giving just him a pointer in exigesis. But most likely, knowing that his nephew was Catholic he was probably trying to tell him that he didn’t need the Catholic Church to interpret the Bible for him, nor did he need to rely on anything outside the Bible to understand it. Therefore, he was probably encouraging his nephew to follow the Sola Scriptura path. Thus, my post.
Bingo! That is exactly what my uncle is trying to do, IMO. Now, the truth be told, I do hope that this exchange with him spurs thought in my uncle’s mind that ultimately leads him back to the faith he was raised in and then rejected.
Funny, the passages we were discussing had nothing to do with any doctrine that divides us, but I think my uncle felt it necessary to start laying the foundation for SS.
Click to expand...
I agree. Anytime you hear people refer to scripture, or the bible as the ultimate authority, they are rejecting the Church, even if they don’t intend to do so. And if they reject the Church, then they tend to reject Jesus, and from then on they tend to put our faith in themselves, instead of in God. Thus, even if we show passages that Jesus says we must listen to His Church, these people will reject those passages, or change the meaning of those passages, or change the meaning of the word “Church”, or deny that anyone in the Church has authority, etc. because their faith is in their own opinion, and they tend to use the bible to justify their own opinion.
Only grace can change the sin of pride.
 
dcdurel said:
I agree. Anytime you hear people refer to scripture, or the bible as the ultimate authority, they are rejecting the Church, even if they don’t intend to do so. .
Click to expand...
Why? What basis do you have for this astonishing assertion?

Edwin
 
I wrote, “I agree. Anytime you hear people refer to scripture, or the bible as the ultimate authority, they are rejecting the Church, even if they don’t intend to do so.”
Contarini said:
Why? What basis do you have for this astonishing assertion?

Edwin
Click to expand...
If the bible is the ultimate authority, then they are making their opinion above God and above the Church. God never said the bible is the ultimate authority. God never directly told anyone, except the first leaders of the Church, the apostles, what is scripture and what is not scripture. Thus we cannot even know what is scripture and what is not scripture without His Church. Jesus did say to listen to His Church. The teaching authorities in His Church, based on the Tradition handed down from the apostles, determined what is scripture. They also taught, based on the teachings handed down from the apostles, who alone were taught everything, that we must interpret scripture based on the word of God that was handed down in Sacred Tradition. And the teaching authority in the Church alone has authority to interpret this word of God.

Thus, to make scripture and the bible the ultimate authority is to make the Word of God handed down in Sacred Tradition secondary and it is to make the teaching authority of the Church secondary. The Church teaches they are ALL equal and NONE can be left out. None is above the other.
 
Contarini said:
Admittedly I’m much closer to Catholicism than most, but you clearly haven’t grasped what I am talking about when I say that Protestants need the Church. You see everything as an either/or.

I need the Church like a dying man in the desert needs water.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmmm…:hmmm: I have to admit that you’ve got me completely stumped. You’re going to have to help me out here. On the one hand you acknowledge that you need the Church as the final arbiter of doctrinal questions, yet you insist that the Church’s understanding of doctrine is binding on you only to the extent that you are in agreement. You acknowledge that you need the Church to perpetuate Christ’s REAL presence in the Sacraments, to be a visible sign of the invisible Kingdom and to maintain the unity of Christians, yet you seperate yourself from the Church that administers those Sacraments, is that sign and maintains that unity, all the while insisting that I have missed your essential point. Hmmmmmmmmm… :hmmm:

I’m stumped. To paraphrase Dr. Evil, “Throw me a bone here.”
 
exiled said:
Bingo! That is exactly what my uncle is trying to do, IMO. Now, the truth be told, I do hope that this exchange with him spurs thought in my uncle’s mind that ultimately leads him back to the faith he was raised in and then rejected.
Click to expand...
I still say that the best counter-argument to any Sola Scriptura believer is just simply to point out that SS simply does not work. If it did all Protestants of good will who subscribe to SS would be united.

Don’t forget to search the resources on this site. Their excellent.
 
Legal_Eagle said:
I still say that the best counter-argument to any Sola Scriptura believer is just simply to point out that SS simply does not work. If it did all Protestants of good will who subscribe to SS would be united.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that the purpose of SS is to unite all Protestants of good will who subscribe to it? Shouldn’t you establish what SS is supposed to do before you say whether it “works” or not?

I don’t think that principles of authority are supposed to “work” in the sense that they provide some infallible result. Clearly Catholicism doesn’t work that way, at least in the minds of folks on this board, because you are forever saying that other people who appear to be Catholics really aren’t. Any principle of authority whatever allows plenty of room for disagreement. I think this entire line of argument is pointless.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Why do you think that the purpose of SS is to unite all Protestants of good will who subscribe to it? Shouldn’t you establish what SS is supposed to do before you say whether it “works” or not?

I don’t think that principles of authority are supposed to “work” in the sense that they provide some infallible result. Clearly Catholicism doesn’t work that way, at least in the minds of folks on this board, because you are forever saying that other people who appear to be Catholics really aren’t. Any principle of authority whatever allows plenty of room for disagreement. I think this entire line of argument is pointless.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Adherence of individual Catholics isn’t the characteristic of Catholic authority. Catholic teaching authority is internally consistent. It never teaches as truth the opposite of what it taught before. However any brand of Sola Scriptura that I’m familiar with does not yield consistent results.

Thus, it is entirely fair to say that Sola Scriptura as a method is invalid.
 
Ok, now scripture to interpret scripture, so you will need scripture to interpret the scripture which interpreted the first scripture, I could go on and on, but eventually, you would end up with one scripture which would not other scripture to interpret it. So what do you do at that point?
😃
 
DeFide said:
Adherence of individual Catholics isn’t the characteristic of Catholic authority. Catholic teaching authority is internally consistent. It never teaches as truth the opposite of what it taught before. However any brand of Sola Scriptura that I’m familiar with does not yield consistent results.
Click to expand...
Well, I’ll let you fight it out with people who are willing to defend SS and who can tell you what they expect SS to achieve. To me any principle concerning sources of authority can do no more than establish the basic ground rules for doctrinal debate–it can’t be expected to settle them. A lot of the problems in Western Christianity IMHO stem from this overemphasis on epistemological foundations.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Well, I’ll let you fight it out with people who are willing to defend SS and who can tell you what they expect SS to achieve. To me any principle concerning sources of authority can do no more than establish the basic ground rules for doctrinal debate–it can’t be expected to settle them. A lot of the problems in Western Christianity IMHO stem from this overemphasis on epistemological foundations.Edwin
Click to expand...
Two points:
  1. If you are not willing to defend Sola Scriptura on what basis, then, do you defend the Reformation at all? As I understand it, and obviously my understanding is very limited, but as I understand it SS was one of the pillars upon which the entire Reformation was based. Because even a corrupt Church, if it has valid Apostolic teaching authority, must be respected and looked to for doctrine. A corrupt Church must be refrormed and called to repentance to be sure (eg St. Benedict, St. Francis, ect.) but respected and listened to none the less. Therefore, if they were to legitamately break away from Holy Mother Church the Reformers had to undermine the very basis of the Church’s authority. Thus was born the notion that we didn’t need the Church to properly understand doctrine. We could rely solely on Scripture. If SS goes, so goes the entire rational for Protestantism.
  2. Surely, you will agree that it is better for the Body of Christ to be unified rather than to be divided. Surely you will agree with me that Christ intended to leave one unified Church with one unified understanding of doctrine rather than the mass of confusion and disunity that is modern Protestantism. God is not the author of confusion or strife.
Contarini said:
To me any principle concerning sources of authority can do no more than establish the basic ground rules for doctrinal debate–it can’t be expected to settle them.
Click to expand...
If this is the case then Christ’s people here on Earth are simply destined to become more and more confused and more and more divided. Each day, it seems, we have debates and arguments among Christians that get more and more divisive. When does life begin? When may we withdraw life support? Do we marry gays and lesbians? Do we ordain women? Did miracles and tounges cease after the Apostolic age? Do we get involved in party politics? Are we pacifists? Your own denomination is on the verge of splitting over some of these very issues. Surely you don’t contend that Jesus left us in this mess. Surely you don’t contend that Jesus left us no sure way to authoritatively resolve these disputes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top