Self-Interpreting Scripture Exercise

[minkymurph]

Until now I had not even heard of the Westminster confession, but what’s the chances of coming to an agreement with all this disagreement about the Westminster confession? What I would say, is the bible contains a divine message and that divine message can only be seen, (we will not in this world fully comprehend it) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit which is the vital element needed in interpreting scripture as it is the Holy Spirit which guides us to truth. If interpretations of scripture are contradictory, we can conclude that either the Holy Spirit isn’t doing a very good job, or not all interpretations are from the Spirit. I would say that the reason there are different interpretations of scripture is because not all interpretations spring from the Spirit. If all interpretations where from the Spirit, there would be no disagreement.

 

[SyCarl]

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.
(John 6:53 NIV)

In this verse Jesus appears to be telling us that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. What does he mean by this? Let’s first look at the following verse.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
(John 6:54 NIV)

Here Jesus uses the same words “eats my flesh” and “drinks my blood”. He makes an unconditional statement that whoever does these things has eternal life. Has Jesus made a similar statement before? Yes He has.

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."
(John 6:40 NIV)

Jesus has made another unconditional statement about who will have eternal life. This time it is whoever looks to Him and believes in Him. Since Jesus can’t be contradicting Himself, “eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood” must mean the same thing as “looks to the Son and believes in him”.

So in verse 53 Jesus is telling us that unless we look to Him and believe in Him we have no life in us.

 

[TDiGaetano]

In this verse Jesus appears to be telling us that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. What does he mean by this? Let’s first look at the following verse.

Here Jesus uses the same words “eats my flesh” and “drinks my blood”. He makes an unconditional statement that whoever does these things has eternal life. Has Jesus made a similar statement before? Yes He has.

**Jesus has made another unconditional statement about who will have eternal life. This time it is whoever looks to Him and believes in Him. Since Jesus can’t be contradicting Himself, “eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood” must mean the same thing as “looks to the Son and believes in him”.

So in verse 53 Jesus is telling us that unless we look to Him and believe in Him we have no life in us**

Then add this reference to thought. In John 6, John describs the Eucharist Catholics believe in, and yes by eating the flesh of christ and by believing that what we eat as truely the body and blood of our Lord. If you notice in the Gosple of John he does not mention the last supper where Jesus broke the bread and passed it around. He mentions the other things that went on. The other Gosples don’t mention the flesh like John 6 but they do mention
the Last supper and the passing of the body and blood.

In John 6 we see that we must believe and that we must eat of our Lord in order to have eternal life. In the other Gosples we see how we are suppose to celebrate his death for us.

There would be no reason for Paul to defend the sacarment of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians if the bread and the wine was not the actual Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus. To degrade it to normal bread and grape juice is unbiblical.

 

[Teflon93]

The state of play:

Two Catholics have offered valid attempts to illuminate John 6:53 using Scripture ALONE, not one word of interpretation added.

Zero Protestants have.

Several Protestants have, however, availed themselves of every opportunity to derail the mere attempt to put a core notion of sola scriptura to rest. Let’s call these attempts “sola discordia”.

I started another thread for those who have now invented the novel claim that Protestants don’t believe “Scripture interprets itself”, which has hitherto been a fundamental, indeed, a non-negotiable, tenet of the Reformation, one of the few with wide Protestant agreement. That thread currently has zero replies.

This should tell us precisely how serious such concerns are on the part of those who advance them.

We are likewise now told the Westminster Confession of Faith requires interpretation itself. Woe to anyone who takes the words of it seriously, and the notion that “**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.”

This sad performance on the part of several of our Protestant derailers can leave us only in one place. We are left, as Luther was left, as Calvin was left, to conclude that “Scripture interprets itself” is the sham the Reformers made it out to be when they started excommunicating one another for offering differing interpretations from the same “self-interpreting Scripture”.

This is a discussion forum, not a “shut down discussions” forum as some would have it.

Yet one can clearly not have a discussion when an interlocutor:

a. Does not formulate arguments, but merely critiques premises.
b. Refuses to define their own terms.
c. Disavows their own arguments, widely available elsewhere. (Perhaps those Protestants who do hold these things have already been excommunicated?)

Only Sandusky made any attempt whatsoever among our Protestant brothers and sisters on this thread to meet the challenge of the exercise. Had he clearly showed the linkage to John 6:53, perhaps we would have had some interpretation to compare my long Catholic example to.

Is this really the best our Protestant brothers and sisters can do? Or is “Scripture interprets Scripture” nothing more than a slogan used by those who claim to adhere to sola scriptura (can’t seem to get a definition of that anymore, either—see b. above) at this point?

Catholicism makes claims which can be tested, by Scripture, by history, and by reality. Has Protestantism gotten to the point where it simply makes no claims at all, so as not to be tested at all?

That may explain why so many hang around here pushing the same old anti-Catholic talking points, ignoring the evidence and reasoning which utterly refutes the same, and derailing any new lines of inquiry which might prove fruitful in some fashion.

Anyone who’s willing to step up and interpret John 6:53, using ONLY Scripture, not one word of interpretation from whatever Tradition or Magisterium you openly acknowledge or take great pains to hide and define away, please have at it.

 

[Teflon93]

In this verse Jesus appears to be telling us that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. What does he mean by this? Let’s first look at the following verse.

Here Jesus uses the same words “eats my flesh” and “drinks my blood”. He makes an unconditional statement that whoever does these things has eternal life. Has Jesus made a similar statement before? Yes He has.

Jesus has made another unconditional statement about who will have eternal life. This time it is whoever looks to Him and believes in Him. Since Jesus can’t be contradicting Himself, “eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood” must mean the same thing as “looks to the Son and believes in him”.

So in verse 53 Jesus is telling us that unless we look to Him and believe in Him we have no life in us.

SyCarl-

These verses certainly bear on John 6:53, but your interspersed interpretation and analysis goes against the ground rules.

We’re simply testing how Scripture interprets Scripture—to do so, we’re eliminating ALL interpretation of men—yours, mine, everybody’s.

Can you recast your response simply in a sequence of Scriptural passages, and show the linkages somehow? In my example, I color-coded like concepts to make the linkages plainer without my having to add a single word of explanation. Since Chapter and verse are of course found in modern Scripture, that is allowed to show where you pulled the verse.

 

[Teflon93]

Until now I had not even heard of the Westminster confession, but what’s the chances of coming to an agreement with all this disagreement about the Westminster confession? What I would say, is the bible contains a divine message and that divine message can only be seen, (we will not in this world fully comprehend it) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit which is the vital element needed in interpreting scripture as it is the Holy Spirit which guides us to truth. If interpretations of scripture are contradictory, we can conclude that either the Holy Spirit isn’t doing a very good job, or not all interpretations are from the Spirit. I would say that the reason there are different interpretations of scripture is because not all interpretations spring from the Spirit. If all interpretations where from the Spirit, there would be no disagreement.

The Westminster Confession, as noted, is a red herring on the part of those who seek to derail the exercise.

It was included simply because had it or something similar not been, one of our derailers would have claimed “Protestants don’t believe that”.

As we have seen, it didn’t matter since they claimed it anyway.

I have provided a slew of links in a separate thread for anyone who still thinks “Scripture interprets Scripture” is somehow not a Protestant belief. It is, and a widely held one as anyone who puts the phrase in a Google search will see. Moreover, it is a fundamental tenet of sola scriptura. You’ll find it in the Wikipedia entry for sola scriptura.

So we’re testing it on John 6:53.

For some reason, the derailers seem afraid to put it to the test.

 

[Teflon93]

For anyone late arriving who wants to see an example of a response to the challenge, mine begins here.

 

[PC_Master]

The Westminster Confession, as noted, is a red herring on the part of those who seek to derail the exercise.

No, it is something which was included by you, but which you twisted to say something it doesn’t. You purport it to mean that all important things in scripture are clear and self-evident. In fact, all the confession says is that those things which are necessary for salvation are clear. Other things, according to the confession, have less certainty.

It was included simply because had it or something similar not been, one of our derailers would have claimed “Protestants don’t believe that”…As we have seen, it didn’t matter since they claimed it anyway…I have provided a slew of links in a separate thread for anyone who still thinks “Scripture interprets Scripture” is somehow not a Protestant belief. It is…

I’ll grant you that point – some Protestants do indeed hold that scripture interprets itself. However, I’d like to know what difference you think this thread will make. I’ve yet to see a single Protestant poster insist that scripture interprets itself on these forums. Thus, it would seem that you’re “preaching to the choir”, because no one here is espousing the position you’re assaulting.

Why not, instead, spend time discussing (not assaulting) the positions that actually are espoused by Protestants on this forum? Would that not be more productive in convincing your brothers and sisters to come into the fullness of truth (as you see it)?

For instance, my view is that the Holy Spirit guides the individual believer in regards to scriptural interpretation.

Moreover, it is a fundamental tenet of sola scriptura. You’ll find it in the Wikipedia entry for sola scriptura…So we’re testing it on John 6:53.

For some reason, the derailers seem afraid to put it to the test.

If you’d like, I can throw up a good half a dozen quotes from scripture which say that whoever believes in Jesus will have eternal life, and whoever does not believe will not have it. I assume, however, that you know those passages well, and thus don’t need them repeated here.

So, scripture is clear that belief in Christ grants one eternal life. Failure to believe condemns one to hell. The passage in John 6 is quite obviously a metaphor, as is the statement that Jesus is bread that came down from heaven. Now, would you care to address this point, or are you going to ignore it again, further showing your disdain for me and for your brothers and sisters in Christ?

 

[Teflon93]

No, it is something which was included by you, but which you twisted to say something it doesn’t. You purport it to mean that all important things in scripture are clear and self-evident. In fact, all the confession says is that those things which are necessary for salvation are clear. Other things, according to the confession, have less certainty.

Not only did I note it, that was the criteria for selecting John 6:53 to test. Christ is clearly speaking of salvation in this passage.

I’ll grant you that point – some Protestants do indeed hold that scripture interprets itself. However, I’d like to know what difference you think this thread will make. I’ve yet to see a single Protestant poster insist that scripture interprets itself on these forums. Thus, it would seem that you’re “preaching to the choir”, because no one here is espousing the position you’re assaulting.

Then join the fray and see how this concept works. I spent a lot of time trying it myself.

Why not, instead, spend time discussing (not assaulting) the positions that actually are espoused by Protestants on this forum? Would that not be more productive in convincing your brothers and sisters to come into the fullness of truth (as you see it)?

I’m sorry, do you think the purpose of the forum is to discuss the issues you raise? Our interests are broader than that.

For instance, my view is that the Holy Spirit guides the individual believer in regards to scriptural interpretation.

Great—figure out how to test it. I’ll be happy to take part in that thread, and to do so without the derailment you and others have attempted repeatedly here.

If you’d like, I can throw up a good half a dozen quotes from scripture which say that whoever believes in Jesus will have eternal life, and whoever does not believe will not have it. I assume, however, that you know those passages well, and thus don’t need them repeated here.

Sure, so link them, as I have done, in some fashion to John 6:53—WHICH IS THE PASSAGE WE’RE TRYING TO EXPLAIN.

So, scripture is clear that belief in Christ grants one eternal life. Failure to believe condemns one to hell. The passage in John 6 is quite obviously a metaphor, as is the statement that Jesus is bread that came down from heaven. Now, would you care to address this point, or are you going to ignore it again, further showing your disdain for me and for your brothers and sisters in Christ?

The only disdain here is for those who:

a. Cannot think of their own tests for various claims made by various Christian communities

b. Insist on derailing others by simply ignoring the OP.

c. Pettifog, insinuate, and otherwise make it difficult for clear, straightforward discussion.

This is NOT a thread about PC Master’s interpretation of John 6:53. Go start that one if you’d like.

This is a thread about how Scripture interprets itself.

But thank you for continuing to demonstrate the Catholic position, which is that Scripture does NOT intepret itself.

The question then becomes the authority of the interpreter.

We’ll move to that one in a later installment.

 

[PC_Master]

The question that John 6:53 seems to be raising for you (at least in terms of “scripture interprets scripture”) is…

What is necessary for salvation? Do I have to eat the flesh of Christ to be saved?

That is what you think is unclear from that passage, right?

Okay then, let’s look at other places in scripture for clarification…

Acts 16:30-31 Amplified
30 And he brought them out [of the dungeon] and said, Men, what is it necessary for me to do that I may be saved?
31 And they answered, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, [and this applies both to] you and your household as well.

But perhaps, some might say Paul and Silas were wrong in telling them this? Let’s look at the words of Christ himself:

Mark 16:15-16 Amplified
15 And He said to them, Go into all the world and preach and publish openly the good news (the Gospel) to every creature [of the whole human race].
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved [from the penalty of eternal death]; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Still unclear? No problem! Just as the WCF says, all things which are necessary for salvation are propounded in many places in scripture.

John 3:16-17 Amplified
16 For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life.
17 For God did not send the Son into the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, but that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.
Need more? I can oblige if necessary. Now unless you don’t wish to use the most basic of mental faculties, it should be obvious what the meaning of these passages is. Oh, and by the way, Jesus used the same type of metaphoric conversation in John 3 as in John 6. The only difference is that in John 3, it’s “be born again” rather than “eat and drink of me”. But read the passages for yourself, and then see what conclusion you come to. I think if you’re honest with yourself, you’ll see that scripture is pretty clear on this point, and no interpretation is required.

 

[Teflon93]

PCM, as noted multiple times, the point of the exercise is to use the text without ONE WORD of interpretation. Please see my examples and recast as need be.

Again, the point is that Scripture interprets itself.

Despite the fact that I do not believe this to be true, and at Sandusky’s request, I provided a valid entry myself.

We may then compare various entries. If Scripture does indeed interpret itself, we should walk away with the same understanding of John 6:53, which, as Christ is talking about salvation, meets the criteria of the WCF passage in the OP.

I will repeat again:

John 6:53 was specifically chosen in light of the WCF 1:7 requirements for Scripture which ought to be clearly understood by learned and unlearned alike through the usual means. The Holy Spirit is not the usual means.

 

[PC_Master]

The quotes above on their own speak well enough. If it so threatens you (though I truly cannot understand why), you may omit all non-quoted sections from my previous post and this one as well.

Romans 10:9 Amplified
9 Because if you acknowledge and confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and in your heart believe (adhere to, trust in, and rely on the truth) that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

*1 Corinthians 15:1-8 Amplified
1 AND NOW let me remind you [since it seems to have escaped you], brethren, of the Gospel (the glad tidings of salvation) which I proclaimed to you, which you welcomed and accepted and upon which your faith rests,
2 And by which you are saved, if you hold fast and keep firmly what I preached to you, unless you believed at first without effect and all for nothing.
3 For I passed on to you first of all what I also had received, that Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One) died for our sins in accordance with [what] the Scriptures [foretold],
4 That He was buried, that He arose on the third day as the Scriptures foretold,
5 And [also] that He appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the Twelve.
6 Then later He showed Himself to more than five hundred brethren at one time, the majority of whom are still alive, but some have fallen asleep [in death].
7 Afterward He was seen by James, then by all the apostles (the special messengers),
8 And last of all He appeared to me also, as to one prematurely and born dead.

*I can’t help but think this is going to end with you saying “See, I disagree with you, so clearly scripture isn’t self-interpreting.”

 

[BrianH]

PC_Master:
[/INDENT]I can’t help but think this is going to end with you saying “See, I disagree with you, so clearly scripture isn’t self-interpreting.”
I concur.

 

[SyCarl]

Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
(John 6:53 DRB)

For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
(John 6:55 DRB)

Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work.
(John 4:34 DRB)

Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent.
(John 6:29 DRB)

And this is** the will of my Father** that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son and believeth in him may have life everlasting. And I will raise him up in the last day.
(John 6:40 DRB)

 

[Pwrlftr]

No, it is something which was included by you, but which you twisted to say something it doesn’t. You purport it to mean that all important things in scripture are clear and self-evident. In fact, all the confession says is that those things which are necessary for salvation are clear. Other things, according to the confession, have less certainty.

The other thing Teflon intentionally overlooks is tha the WCF clearly says that:
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.

MAY ATTAIN does not = WILL ATTAIN

It most certainly doesn’t mean that all will attain the same understanding at the same time on an internet forum.

Additionaly, the WCF says that one “…may attain unto a sufficient understanding…” It never says that there will be lockstep agreement over every detail of a scriptural passage.

Anyway, at the end of the day Teflon will simply say, as PCMaster has alaready pointed out, that “See, I (or some other poster, catholic or protestant) disagree with you, so clearly scripture isn’t self-interpreting.”

Actually, I don’t mind this so much as I do the issue with him mis-using the WCF. He has set up a strawman and two or three of us have called him on it.

What do you want to bet that he will never acknowledge his error?

 

[Pwrlftr]

I have provided a slew of links in a separate thread for anyone who still thinks “Scripture interprets Scripture” is somehow not a Protestant belief. It is, and a widely held one as anyone who puts the phrase in a Google search will see. Moreover, it is a fundamental tenet of sola scriptura. You’ll find it in the Wikipedia entry for sola scriptura.

It’s not that scripture interprets scripture that I object to, it’s your blatant attempt to set up a strawman using the WCF that I object to.

You draw a conclusion from the WCF that is not logical. Note that I am not saying that the WCF is illogical but I am saying you are illogical…just wanted to be crystal clear on this.

I think you have been corrected now by other posters besides me but I suppose you will ignore them as well and continue on with your game.

 

[dbacks5439]

The other thing Teflon intentionally overlooks is tha the WCF clearly says that:

MAY ATTAIN does not = WILL ATTAIN

It most certainly doesn’t mean that all will attain the same understanding at the same time on an internet forum.

Additionaly, the WCF says that one “…may attain unto a sufficient understanding…” It never says that there will be lockstep agreement over every detail of a scriptural passage.

Anyway, at the end of the day Teflon will simply say, as PCMaster has alaready pointed out, that “See, I (or some other poster, catholic or protestant) disagree with you, so clearly scripture isn’t self-interpreting.”

Actually, I don’t mind this so much as I do the issue with him mis-using the WCF. He has set up a strawman and two or three of us have called him on it.

What do you want to bet that he will never acknowledge his error?

So for those who don’t get it, then what does that say about the Holy Spirit?

 

[minkymurph]

I may have missed it in the posts but has anyone commented on the need for guidance from the Holy Spirit in interpreting scripture? I would have to say that without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, any interpretation of scripture is subject to human falliblility. Anything which is subject to human fallibility cannot be considered absolute truth and it is only absolute truth we are compelled to believe. Scripture only interprets itself if the reader is being guided by the Holy Spirit and is open to the leanings of the Holy Spirit. If that was not the case, then the Holy Spirit is not needed to interpret scripture and humans can do it for themselves simply by reading the Bible and need no help.

 

[Lampo]

I may have missed it in the posts but has anyone commented on the need for guidance from the Holy Spirit in interpreting scripture? I would have to say that without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, any interpretation of scripture is subject to human falliblility. Anything which is subject to human fallibility cannot be considered absolute truth and it is only absolute truth we are compelled to believe. Scripture only interprets itself if the reader is being guided by the Holy Spirit and is open to the leanings of the Holy Spirit. If that was not the case, then the Holy Spirit is not needed to interpret scripture and humans can do it for themselves simply by reading the Bible and need no help.

All Protestant denominations claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit too when interpreting Scripture yet NONE of them agree 100% on all doctrinal matters. Does the Holy Spirit tell the Southern Baptists that infant baptism is wrong and at the same time tell Missouri Synod Lutherans that infant baptism is necessary? No. This is simply fruit from Protestantism and the false doctrine of sola scriptura.

 

[PC_Master]

SyCarl> Please go read all of John 3, then John 6, and then look up what “eat” is in Greek. The overall passages are very clear. Confusion over the metaphors Jesus used was even questioned directly in John 3 by Nicodemus, and responded to accordingly. Seriously, go check it out.

I may have missed it in the posts but has anyone commented on the need for guidance from the Holy Spirit in interpreting scripture? I would have to say that without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, any interpretation of scripture is subject to human falliblility. Anything which is subject to human fallibility cannot be considered absolute truth and it is only absolute truth we are compelled to believe. Scripture only interprets itself if the reader is being guided by the Holy Spirit and is open to the leanings of the Holy Spirit. If that was not the case, then the Holy Spirit is not needed to interpret scripture and humans can do it for themselves simply by reading the Bible and need no help.

You’re right. Unfortunately bringing this point to light is going to raise the objection Lampo has…

All Protestant denominations claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit too when interpreting Scripture yet NONE of them agree 100% on all doctrinal matters. Does the Holy Spirit tell the Southern Baptists that infant baptism is wrong and at the same time tell Missouri Synod Lutherans that infant baptism is necessary? No. This is simply fruit from Protestantism and the false doctrine of sola scriptura.

Lampo, there is a simple answer here. Many claim to be receiving the guidance of the Holy Spirit – that doesn’t mean they actually are. Thus, it doesn’t disprove SS (though I don’t hold to SS myself). Do you think any person alive listens 100% to the Holy Spirit? I’ve never met anyone who honestly said that they did.

Do you agree with all other Roman Catholics on 100% of things? Do you agree with any other Roman Catholic on 100% of things? Obviously not!

The Holy Spirit is a guide which is there for us if we will accept his guidance. The problem is that we often don’t.

So, would anyone who has read both John 3 and John 6 (entire chapters please) care to share what their understanding is from those scriptures? Primarily, I’d like to see if there’s any honest seeker who comes out with a different answer, and secondarily, I’d like to get this little bait and switch game over with.