Self-Interpreting Scripture Exercise

[Teflon93]

Sola scriptura adherents claim Scripture interprets itself.

The Westminster Confession 1:7:

“All things in Scripture… which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

Let’s put it to the test, shall we?

I’m going to provide a passage of Scripture which is likely somewhat obscure to some if not all.

Let’s see if we can find Scripture passages which explain the first bit of Scripture.

Here’s the rub—NO additional interpretation is allowed. One may ONLY quote additional Scripture, and quote it directly.

We’re going to let Scripture interpret Scripture and see where that gets us.

If sola scriptura is valid, we should all arrive at the same understanding without dissent, and the meaning of the original passage should be clear.

Here’s the test passage:

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Have at it!

 

[sandusky]

Sola scriptura adherents claim Scripture interprets itself.

Let’s put it to the test, shall we?

I’m going to provide a passage of Scripture which is likely somewhat obscure to some if not all.

Let’s see if we can find Scripture passages which explain the first bit of Scripture.

Here’s the rub—NO additional interpretation is allowed. One may ONLY quote additional Scripture, and quote it directly.

We’re going to let Scripture interpret Scripture and see where that gets us.

If sola scriptura is valid, we should all arrive at the same understanding without dissent, and the meaning of the original passage should be clear.

Here’s the test passage:

Have at it!

It’s your test, you start, and demonstrate, in depth, what it is you’re after!

 

[PC_Master]

I’m curious as to who the supposed SS adherents are that you expect will see this.

Even if you completely proved that something besides scripture is needed, then you’d still need to prove what that something is. It seems to me the big issue for you is that Protestants reject Roman Catholic tradition/authority, so perhaps you’re better off to spend your time supporting that (which means disproving beliefs such as mine – that the Holy Spirit works on an individual level, and not on an institutional one).

It’s just a thought, anyway.

In other news, the passage you took that verse from is John 6, and if you read the surrounding context, it really kills the idea that John 6:53 isn’t figurative. After all, was Jesus saying that he was actually bread in verse 48? Certainly not. It was an analogy, as Jesus is well known for using in scripture.

Anywho, like I said – your time is better spent not trying to disprove SS, for few truly believe that, and I’ve seen none here which actually believe that. Now, if you’d like to prove to me how you absolutely know that the traditions of the RCC are vital to my spiritual growth, I’d love to hear that.

 

[MarcoPolo]

“All things in Scripture… which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

It’s too bad John MacArthur isn’t here. I heard him say the same darn thing on the radio this week!! Although interestingly he later used a secular history book to help him understand the road to Calvary…

 

[Teflon93]

Hmmm, not even a feeble attempt to disprove the Catholic teaching that Scripture doesn’t teach Scripture.

Is the Westminster Confession wrong?

 

[Pwrlftr]

If sola scriptura is valid, we should all arrive at the same understanding without dissent, and the meaning of the original passage should be clear.

Not so. You left out a portion of the WCF in your first post that seems to be relevant that I have boldened below.

The full section says:
WCF:

VII. All things in Scripture **are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things **which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

It plainly says that all things in scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. It’s curious that you left that part out.

You also twist the WCF to suit your apologetic. I will be charitable and assume you did this by mistake and aren’t as dishonest as you could be perceived as being.

Nowhere does the WCF or SS state that everyone in an internet forum is going to come to the same understanding of a particular verse at the same time. In fact it’s quite clear that the WCF says;
WCF:

“that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

It says that one MAY attain a SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE,

It does not say that one will DEFINITELY come to the EXACT same understanding of a particular verse as someone else in an internet forum. In fact, it never makes the claim that every person will come to a sufficient knowledge, only that they may come to a sufficient knowledge.

I am going to be charitable and assume you haven’t read the WCF carefully and have relied on some catholic pop-apologist’s understanding of sola scriptura 'cuz your first post makes the WCF say something that, taken in it’s own words, stops way short of what you are trying to twist it to say.

There is no way to respond to your first post, other than by pointing out that you are trying to make the WCF say more than it actually does, which could be taken as being dishonesty on your part.

 

[Teflon93]

Not so. You left out a portion of the WCF in your first post that seems to be relevant that I have boldened below.

The full section says:

It plainly says that all things in scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. It’s curious that you left that part out.

How does that change the post topic?

The passage from John 6 is:

a. Spoken by Jesus
b. On the subject of salvation
c. Is the source of differing interpretations both within Protestant denominations and between Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics.

How does the Westminster Confession’s definition of sola scriptura and Scripture interpreting itself NOT apply?

You also twist the WCF to suit your apologetic. I will be charitable and assume you did this by mistake and aren’t as dishonest as you could be perceived as being.

There’s no greater dishonesty than quoting your own document, is there?

Are we saying now that the Westminster Confession ITSELF needs extra-textual interpretation?

Whom will provide that?

Nowhere does the WCF or SS state that everyone in an internet forum is going to come to the same understanding of a particular verse at the same time. In fact it’s quite clear that the WCF says;

It says that one MAY attain a SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE,

The passage refers to a requirement for salvation. Seems pretty important to have similar translations, doesn’t it?

It does not say that one will DEFINITELY come to the EXACT same understanding of a particular verse as someone else in an internet forum. In fact, it never makes the claim that every person will come to a sufficient knowledge, only that they may come to a sufficient knowledge.

All of which is simply a concession that Scripture cannot interpret itself.

Since that however is what we are testing, it seems quite beside the point. The passage I quoted from the WCF clearly indicates “learned and unlearned”. That means “more than a handful of Elders”, doesn’t it?

I am going to be charitable and assume you haven’t read the WCF carefully and have relied on some catholic pop-apologist’s understanding of sola scriptura 'cuz your first post make the WCF say something that, taken in it’s own words, stops way short of what you are trying to twist it to say.

I am going to be charitable and presume your polemic is simply the result of your inability to answer the OP.

So since you’re incapable of doing it, let’s see if someone else can.

 

[Teflon93]

Let me bold this for those who are inclined to disavow their own documents:

The Westminster Confession 1:7:

“All things in Scripture… which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other,** that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them**.”

An extraordinary claim.

So let’s put it to the test with John 6:53.

Scripture, unalloyed by those nasty interpretations of Men, and Scripture alone should tell us what Christ meant.

It should also clear up that business of the Eucharist that Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglicans and Lutherans persist in believing is Actual Presence and necessary, vs most Protestants who believe it is merely symbolic and not.

So let’s see it.

If none of our Protestant brothers and sisters, learned and unlearned, are capable of making even an attempt, I will at least give it the old college try this evening. It ought to be a reasonable sacrifice for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception on my part.

And if the results are unsatisfactory, well, we’ll simply have to consider the backbone of sola scriptura — that Scripture is the interpreter of Scripture — to be the bogus innovation Catholics have always claimed it to be.

Since Protestants have had 500 years to hone their hermeneutics, this ought to be a rather simple exercise.

Show us how it’s done.

 

[Pwrlftr]

How does that change the post topic?

The passage from John 6 is:

a. Spoken by Jesus
b. On the subject of salvation
c. Is the source of differing interpretations both within Protestant denominations and between Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics.

How does the Westminster Confession’s definition of sola scriptura and Scripture interpreting itself NOT apply?

You quote the WCF in an earlier post and then say:

Teflon:

If sola scriptura is valid, we should all arrive at the same understanding without dissent, and the meaning of the original passage should be clear.

The WCF, as I have plainly shown, does not say that we will all arrive at the same understanding w/out dissent and that the meaning of the original passage should be clear.

In fact it says:
WCF:

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, ***may attain ***unto a sufficient understanding of them.

It can’t be any clearer than saying that not all things in scripture are alike plain in themselver nor alike clear unto all and that one MAY attain a sufficient understanding of them

teflon:

There’s no greater dishonesty than quoting your own document, is there?

This makes no sense at all. You twist the WCF to make it say something it doesn’t and now you are caught like a child w/ his hand in the cookie jar.

teflon:

Are we saying now that the Westminster Confession ITSELF needs extra-textual interpretation?

The portion of the WCF you quoted is pretty clear, you are just letting your bias get in the way.

teflon:

The passage refers to a requirement for salvation. Seems pretty important to have similar translations, doesn’t it?

All of which is simply a concession that Scripture cannot interpret itself.

But your first post does more than say that scripture cannot interpret itself. You take the WCF and twist it around to set up a strawman. If you would have simply said that “scripture cannot interpret itself”, I would disagree but you have every right to be wrong. You don’t have a right to twist documents to suit your own polemic.

teflon:

Since that however is what we are testing, it seems quite beside the point. The passage I quoted from the WCF clearly indicates “learned and unlearned”. That means “more than a handful of Elders”, doesn’t it?

Hey, you finally got something half right. It says that one MAY attain a sufficient knowledge but it doesn’t say that scripture is as clear to the casual reader of the Bible as it is the theologian who has spent a lifetime studying the scriptures.

teflon:

So since you’re incapable of doing it, let’s see if someone else can.

You set up a straw man by twisting the WCF to make it say way, way more than it actually does.

 

[Teflon93]

You quote the WCF in an earlier post and then say:

The WCF, as I have plainly shown, does not say that we will all arrive at the same understanding w/out dissent and that the meaning of the original passage should be clear.

It says, for the third time for those who lack comprehension:

The Westminster Confession 1:7:

“All things in Scripture… which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

ALL things, necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, ARE SO CLEARLY PROPOUNDED and opened in some place of Scripture or other, THAT NOT ONLY THE LEARNED, BUT THE UNLEARNED, in due course of the ORDINARY MEANS, may attain unto A SUFFICIENT UNDERSTANDING OF THEM.

Pwrfltr’s sophistry notwithstanding, what precisely about this is unclear?

John 6:53:

1. Is Christ speaking (no greater authority)
2. References salvation (all things necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation)
3. Is part of Scripture

Therefore, per WCF, it ought to be clear.

Since the original passage is interpreted in widely different ways by different denominations, we can only presume that it is clearly propopunded and opened elsewhere in Scripture.

That is what we are testing. That is a fair test of the truth of the WCF statement.

It can’t be any clearer than saying that not all things in scripture are alike plain in themselver nor alike clear unto all and that one MAY attain a sufficient understanding of them.

And it can’t be any clearer that you’re tossing out red herring after red herring due to your own inability to use Scripture to interpret Scripture.

The point of Scripture is to point the way to salvation, isn’t it? Don’t virtually all sola scripturists hold that everything necessary and sufficient for Scripture is within it? Not much good if it can’t be understood, can it?

I didn’t invent the notion of self-interpreting Scripture—some heretic did.

We’re simply testing the claim.

This makes no sense at all. You twist the WCF to make it say something it doesn’t and now you are caught like a child w/ his hand in the cookie jar.

Who’s acting guilty and changing the subject?

I have twisted nothing. I QUOTED it. I quoted it precisely in fact because some dishonest and squirrelly person looking to derail the thread would claim that whatever definition of self-interpreting Scripture or sola scriptura I provided was wrong. Since many Protestants hold to WCF, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to let you quarrel with your own documents.

The portion of the WCF you quoted is pretty clear, you are just letting your bias get in the way.

And you, so fearful that the exercise CANNOT be done, simply try to derail the attempt.

I have the virtue of having been a Protestant for some 36 years.

How long were you a Catholic, sir?

How biased are you?

But your first post does more than say that scripture cannot interpret itself. You take the WCF and twist it around to set up a strawman. If you would have simply said that “scripture cannot interpret itself”, I would disagree but you have every right to be wrong. You don’t have a right to twist documents to suit your own polemic.

All bluster, no facts.

If you’re incapable of meeting the challenge, move out of the way so someone able to do so can.

Hey, you finally got something half right. It says that one MAY attain a sufficient knowledge but it doesn’t say that scripture is as clear to the casual reader of the Bible as it is the theologian who has spent a lifetime studying the scriptures.

“Learned AND unlearned.” “Ordinary means.”

You do speak English?

You set up a straw man by twisting the WCF to make it say way, way more than it actually does.

I did something even worse:

I took Protestantism’s theological claims at face value so that we may test their veracity.

If they’re true, prove them.

All the bluster avails not.

 

[Teflon93]

So, derailment attempts by the inexplicably nervous aside:

John 6:53.

Explain it from Scripture ALONE.

Go!

 

[Church_Militant]

I have a couple of points that might be relevant.

If scripture is self interpreting…

1. Why are there such a wide variety of interpretations of same from the people who tell me this.
2. In light of this idea, how does it explain the following verses from Matthew 5, (as well as Matthew 18, and Mark 9).

[29] If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.
[30] And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

 

[PC_Master]

Teflon> Your attempts at social engineering are not very becoming of a Christian. I also still don’t see what you think this will gain you, as there are very few people that truly adhere to SS. Still, let’s examine the Westminster Confession (at least in part) and see what it’s saying…*From the Westminster Confession of Faith
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
*All right. There it is. This says the following…

1. All scripture is not equally clear.
2. All scripture is not clear to everyone.
3. Things which are necessary for salvation are very clearly “propounded and opened in some place of scripture or other” – this seems to be the crux of the issue.

What this third bit is saying is that the key points of faith are not present in one verse alone, but are confirmed by multiple witnesses as to leave no doubt as to their meaning or importance. Many Protestants do indeed hold to this.

I would guess that the original “signers” of the Westminster Confession would hold that anything which is not supported by a multitude of scriptural witnesses is not necessary for salvation. While I can’t say that I most certainly believe this, I have yet to come across an issue that violates it.

Now, let’s look at your example. According to the Westminster Confession, we should be able to ascertain the meaning of a passage by the use of other scripture (“propounded or opened in some place of scripture or other”) and “ordinary means” (I’d say at least common sense falls into this).

Let’s start with a premise. Jesus was known for using parables and analogies. I think this premise can be easily supported by many scriptural passages. He used analogies and parables to illustrate truths.

For instance, “he that hears my teachings and does them is like a wise man who builds his house on a rock”. Obviously, we all would agree he wasn’t saying that listening to his teachings was the same as the work involved in building a house. It was an analogy to demonstrate that his teachings were a good, solid foundation on which to build one’s belief.

Now, taking into context that Jesus frequently spoke in parables and analogies (which we’ve deduced by very ordinary means), let’s read John 6:53, with its surrounding context, and apply ordinary means to it as well (please also feel free to read the whole chapter – it further emphasizes the point)…*John 6:44-65 Amplified
44 No one is able to come to Me unless the Father Who sent Me attracts and draws him and gives him the desire to come to Me, and [then] I will raise him up [from the dead] at the last day.
45 It is written in [the book of] the Prophets, And they shall all be taught of God [have Him in person for their Teacher]. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to Me–
46 Which does not imply that anyone has seen the Father [not that anyone has ever seen Him] except He [Who was with the Father] Who comes from God; He [alone] has seen the Father.
47 I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, he who believes in Me [who adheres to, trusts in, relies on, and has faith in Me] has (now possesses) eternal life.
*So, Jesus explains that those who have belief in him (that is, trust in him) have eternal life. Belief grants eternal life. So far, no problem.*48 I am the Bread of Life [that gives life–the Living Bread].
49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and [yet] they died.
50 [But] this is the Bread that comes down from heaven, so that [any]one may eat of it and never die.
51 I [Myself] am this Living Bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this Bread, he will live forever; and also the Bread that I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh (body).
*Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

At this point, there’s probably some confusion – Jesus says “I am bread from heaven”. Now, do we actually, for a moment, believe that Jesus was actually bread? Of course not, especially if we read the rest of the chapter. Thus, we know (from very simple reasoning – nothing complex going on here) that Jesus is making an analogy based on what he just said (that those who believe will have eternal life).*52 Then the Jews angrily contended with one another, saying, How is He able to give us His flesh to eat?
53 And Jesus said to them, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, you cannot have any life in you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood.
54 He who feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood has (possesses now) eternal life, and I will raise him up [from the dead] on the last day.
*Aha – here the analogy comes to completion. Feeding on Jesus’ flesh and drinking Jesus’ blood grants eternal life, he says. Look up at verses 44 and 47 – do you see the parallel with verse 54? Belief in Christ grants eternal life, and Jesus will raise us up on the last day. Here, he uses the exact same language about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. It’s very clearly an analogy, down to the very wording used.*55 For My flesh is true and genuine food, and My blood is true and genuine drink.
56 He who feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood dwells continually in Me, and I [in like manner dwell continually] in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent Me and I live by (through, because of) the Father, even so whoever continues to feed on Me [whoever takes Me for his food and is nourished by Me] shall [in his turn] live through and because of Me.
58 This is the Bread that came down from heaven. It is not like the manna which our forefathers ate, and yet died; he who takes this Bread for his food shall live forever.
59 He said these things in a synagogue while He was teaching at Capernaum.
60 When His disciples heard this, many of them said, This is a hard and difficult and strange saying (an offensive and unbearable message). Who can stand to hear it? [Who can be expected to listen to such teaching?]
61 But Jesus, knowing within Himself that His disciples were complaining and protesting and grumbling about it, said to them: Is this a stumbling block and an offense to you? [Does this upset and displease and shock and scandalize you?]
62 What then [will be your reaction] if you should see the Son of Man ascending to [the place] where He was before?
*The above verses are most important for understanding context. Some people had a problem with what Jesus had just said – they didn’t understand it. Jesus clarifies…*63 It is the Spirit Who gives life [He is the Life-giver]; the flesh conveys no benefit whatever [there is no profit in it]. The words (truths) that I have been speaking to you are spirit and life.
*Jesus just said that eating his flesh would grant eternal life. If you take this as something other than an analogy, verse 63 seems to be in conflict - the flesh conveys no benefit whatever. But, if we consider that Jesus does not lie, and we look at his saying as an analogy (this is very ordinary reasoning, since we know that he frequently used analogies to make his point clear), we can see confirmation here - the words that I have been speaking to you are spirit and life (as opposed to physical/flesh).*64 But [still] some of you fail to believe and trust and have faith. For Jesus knew from the first who did not believe and had no faith and who would betray Him and be false to Him.
65 And He said, This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted him [unless he is enabled to do so] by the Father.
*Scripture is often very clear, if you simply read it in its context, instead of pulling out single verses. To those who honestly wish to know the meaning of the verse in question – please go read all of John 6. Teflon, before you reply, I request that you also go read John 6, and simply apply common reasoning to it (without trying to read doctrine into it – just read what it says, and remember that Jesus did use analogies [unless you wish to argue that he didn’t]).

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon> Your attempts at social engineering are not very becoming of a Christian.

You still don’t know what “social engineering” means, and your various posts and refusals to deal in evidence do not a Christian example make.

I also still don’t see what you think this will gain you, as there are very few people that truly adhere to SS. Still, let’s examine the Westminster Confession (at least in part) and see what it’s saying…From the Westminster Confession of Faith
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
All right. There it is. This says the following…

You apparently can’t distinguish between “says” and “means” either.

1. All scripture is not equally clear.
2. All scripture is not clear to everyone.
3. Things which are necessary for salvation are very clearly “propounded and opened in some place of scripture or other” – this seems to be the crux of the issue.

What this third bit is saying is that the key points of faith are not present in one verse alone, but are confirmed by multiple witnesses as to leave no doubt as to their meaning or importance. Many Protestants do indeed hold to this.

I would guess that the original “signers” of the Westminster Confession would hold that anything which is not supported by a multitude of scriptural witnesses is not necessary for salvation. While I can’t say that I most certainly believe this, I have yet to come across an issue that violates it.

Now, let’s look at your example. According to the Westminster Confession, we should be able to ascertain the meaning of a passage by the use of other scripture (“propounded or opened in some place of scripture or other”) and “ordinary means” (I’d say at least common sense falls into this).

Let’s start with a premise. Jesus was known for using parables and analogies. I think this premise can be easily supported by many scriptural passages. He used analogies and parables to illustrate truths.

For instance, “he that hears my teachings and does them is like a wise man who builds his house on a rock”. Obviously, we all would agree he wasn’t saying that listening to his teachings was the same as the work involved in building a house. It was an analogy to demonstrate that his teachings were a good, solid foundation on which to build one’s belief.

Now, taking into context that Jesus frequently spoke in parables and analogies (which we’ve deduced by very ordinary means), let’s read John 6:53, with its surrounding context, and apply ordinary means to it as well (please also feel free to read the whole chapter – it further emphasizes the point)…John 6:44-65 Amplified
44 No one is able to come to Me unless the Father Who sent Me attracts and draws him and gives him the desire to come to Me, and [then] I will raise him up [from the dead] at the last day.
45 It is written in [the book of] the Prophets, And they shall all be taught of God [have Him in person for their Teacher]. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to Me–
46 Which does not imply that anyone has seen the Father [not that anyone has ever seen Him] except He [Who was with the Father] Who comes from God; He [alone] has seen the Father.
47 I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, he who believes in Me [who adheres to, trusts in, relies on, and has faith in Me] has (now possesses) eternal life.
So, Jesus explains that those who have belief in him (that is, trust in him) have eternal life. Belief grants eternal life. So far, no problem.*48 I am the Bread of Life [that gives life–the Living Bread].
49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and [yet] they died.
50 [But] this is the Bread that comes down from heaven, so that [any]one may eat of it and never die.
51 I [Myself] am this Living Bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this Bread, he will live forever; and also the Bread that I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh (body).
*Continued…

Yadda yadda yadda.

All tons of excess bluster and verbiage from a completely unreliable source (PC Master).

SCRIPTURE ALONE.

If you wish to practice “sola discordia”, take it to another thread.

This topic is as indicated in the OP.

 

[Teflon93]

For those keeping score:

of Protestants able to demonstrate that Scripture interprets Scripture thus far:​

ZERO.

Let’s see who can rise to the Sola Scriptura Challenge.

Should be easy to do with so many papal wannabes.

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

Hmmm, not even a feeble attempt to disprove the Catholic teaching that Scripture doesn’t teach Scripture.

T93, the statement of the OP said nothing about Catholic teaching; correct?

So you are engaging in a bait-and-switch, game; which is, IMO, a typical MO for you.

The OP stated from the WCF:

“All things in Scripture… which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

Let’s see:**Acts 16:30-31

30 and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” **Pretty simple.

 

[Teflon93]

I have a couple of points that might be relevant.

If scripture is self interpreting…

1. Why are there such a wide variety of interpretations of same from the people who tell me this.
2. In light of this idea, how does it explain the following verses from Matthew 5, (as well as Matthew 18, and Mark 9).

[29] If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.
[30] And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

All valid, CM, but a different thread.

I want our Protestant brothers and sisters to PROVE Scripture interprets Scripture.

Should be a simple thing for them to do, given that they are not laden with all these “interpretations and traditions of Men”, right?

I’ve provided a verse which meets the WCF criteria.

Several who realize they cannot meet the challenge have resorted to their usual woolgathering, red herrings, and derailment techniques. Apparently they lack faith that their brothers and sisters can best their nonperformance.

The only question in this thread is:

Can Scripture interpret Scripture?

That’s the name of the game, friends.

The rules are simple, a passage regarding salvation which is apparently obscure (since many fundamentally different interpretations abound) has been provided, all that is to be done is to provide Scripture passages ALONE to interpret it.

As entertaining as it is to watch various Protestants get the vapors over this, and suddenly claim that a fundamental tenet of the Reformation—the notion that Scriptural interpretation is for everyone, Scripture being the sole rule of faith—is somehow now NOT Protestant doctrine or dogma but has rather been invented by those wily Catholic apologists, that isn’t the point.

The point is to test a claim made in the WCF and elsewhere—that Scripture interprets Scripture.

So let’s see it do it.

All the rest of the huffing and puffing is tantamount to an admission of inadequacy to meet this challenge.

If no Protestant brothers and sisters can be found to take on the challenge as stated, I have no doubt that one or more of us Catholics will, steeped as we are in Scripture, if only to see if it can be done.

After all, what Catholic fears Truth?

Onward…

 

[Teflon93]

Sola scriptura adherents claim Scripture interprets itself.

Let’s put it to the test, shall we?

I’m going to provide a passage of Scripture which is likely somewhat obscure to some if not all.

Let’s see if we can find Scripture passages which explain the first bit of Scripture.

Here’s the rub—NO additional interpretation is allowed. One may ONLY quote additional Scripture, and quote it directly.

We’re going to let Scripture interpret Scripture and see where that gets us.

If sola scriptura is valid, we should all arrive at the same understanding without dissent, and the meaning of the original passage should be clear.

Here’s the test passage:

Have at it!

Restating the OP for those distracted by the sound and fury signifying nothing of those who simply seek to derail threads.

 

[Teflon93]

John 6:

25 When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”

26 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.

27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

30 So they asked him, "What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?

31Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[c]"

32 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.

33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

34 “Sir,” they said, “from now on give us this bread.”

35 Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.

36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

41 At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”

42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered.

44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.

46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

48 I am the bread of life.

49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.

50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.

51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.