What is the standard against which you measure your understanding of Scripture?

[Philthy]

michaelp:

None accurately represent the Reformers model which would be a Spirit-led exegesis which involved Scripture interpreting Scripture, historical-grammatical-literary hermeneutic, and the community of faith.

• With “the buck” stopping where?
• Is there a hierarchy of authority between exegesis, interpretation, hermeneutic, and the community of faith?
• PLease explain what "scripture interpreing Scripture means - I honestly don’t know.
• Please define exactly how the “community of faith” is recognizable and how it exercises it’s role.
• How, specifically, do we know when Truth has been expressed extrabiblically?
• How did this system function for the first 1500 years of Christianity when the “community of faith” was entirely illiterate?

Thanks,

Phil

 

[michaelp]

Thank you for the good questions:

With “the buck” stopping where?

The buck stops with the Scripture. It is not that difficult to interpret when you start without presuppositions. I think that this is the greatest enlighenment to people who take a Hermeneutics class. When exegesis is conducted in a common sense model, and you put a little sweat behind your studies, it is not that hard.

People do hard work all of the time. They study background info for all kinds of things at their jobs and in other subjects at school. Why can’t they do this with Scripture. People are smarter than you think. You are smarter than you think! Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise . . . you will be alone at judgement without the Magisterium. All people will be held accountable for their own interpretation.

Is there a hierarchy of authority between exegesis, interpretation, hermeneutic, and the community of faith?

Exegesis and interpretation are all part of one’s hermeneutic. Yes, there is an authority–the Church as the community of believers, both alive and dead. This authority is not infallible though (in my opinion). Another authority is our conscience derived from general revelation. A lesser authority is how God has worked through our experience. Although subjective, it is powerful and must be taken into account. Another lesser authority is our emotions as the Holy Spirit moves in us. But the only infallible authority is the Scripture. These are all taken into account whether you like to admit it or not. We just need to know how this hierarchy is structured.

PLease explain what "scripture interpreing Scripture means - I honestly don’t know.

There is a common phrase concerning the Old and New Testaments:
“The New is in the old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed.”

Example: Who is the snake in the Garden? If you said Satan, you are right. How do you know? Because further revelation explained this to you? Scripture interprets Scripture.
Example 2: What does the protoevangelion (“first Gospel”) in Genesis 3:15 refer to? If you said Christ, you are correct again. Not because it would have been evident to the readers of Genesis, but because God’s covenant of redemptions is progressively revealed through the rest of Scripture.

 

[michaelp]

Cont. . .

Please define exactly how the “community of faith” is recognizable and how it exercises it’s role.

All those who are Protestants . . . It was a joke!!

It is recognizable through Church counsels, creeds, the collective creedal adherence of the Body of Christ throughout time. But this does not make or necesitate it to be infallible or perfect any more than saying that we are recognized by our love one another makes it infallible or perfect. The Body of Christ can certianly send the wrong message.

For example, if you were to look to the collective body of Christ prior to Anselm, you would find the collective heresy of the Ransom to Satan theory of the Atonement (that the Cross was a price paid to Satan and not to God). This was a misrepresentation adhered to by the majority of professing believers. Therefore, we cannot trust in this alone, but we do respect the authority of Tradition. Luther and Calvin certianly did, as they quoted many Church Fathers for their support, as well as Creeds. Remember, sola scriptura does not mean nula scriptura. In other words Scripture is our only infallible authority, but not our only authority. There are always higher and lower authorities in our lives. The Government is an authority, but not on the same level as Scripture.

How, specifically, do we know when Truth has been expressed extrabiblically?

Most of the time the Bible is clear. On the things that are not clear, you research to the best of your ability and come to the best conclusion you can. Sometimes this means that you come to no conclusion on certian issues. You don’t have to start with the assumption that God wants us to be equally clear about everything.

How did this system function for the first 1500 years of Christianity when the “community of faith” was entirely illiterate?

Illiteracy does not make the heirarchy described above obsolete. Just like if I were to read the Scripture to someone today who could not read, he would be responsible for the things that he heard.

Hope this helps. They really were good questions. You always have good points and I appreciate that. We may not agree in the end, but it is nice to talk about these things to come to a better understanding of each other don’t you think?

Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

Cont. . .

All those who are Protestants . . . It was a joke!!

It is recognizable through Church counsels, creeds, the collective creedal adherence of the Body of Christ throughout time. But this does not make or necesitate it to be infallible or perfect any more than saying that we are recognized by our love one another makes it infallible or perfect. The Body of Christ can certianly send the wrong message.

For example, if you were to look to the collective body of Christ prior to Anselm, you would find the collective heresy of the Ransom to Satan theory of the Atonement (that the Cross was a price paid to Satan and not to God). This was a misrepresentation adhered to by the majority of professing believers. Therefore, we cannot trust in this alone, but we do respect the authority of Tradition. Luther and Calvin certianly did, as they quoted many Church Fathers for their support, as well as Creeds. Remember, sola scriptura does not mean nula scriptura. In other words Scripture is our only infallible authority, but not our only authority. There are always higher and lower authorities in our lives. The Government is an authority, but not on the same level as Scripture.

Most of the time the Bible is clear. On the things that are not clear, you research to the best of your ability and come to the best conclusion you can. Sometimes this means that you come to no conclusion on certian issues. You don’t have to start with the assumption that God wants us to be equally clear about everything.

Illiteracy does not make the heirarchy described above obsolete. Just like if I were to read the Scripture to someone today who could not read, he would be responsible for the things that he heard.

Hope this helps. They really were good questions. You always have good points and I appreciate that. We may not agree in the end, but it is nice to talk about these things to come to a better understanding of each other don’t you think?

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Phil, after you respond to the post (if you want to do so), I have an honest question for you that I think people keep skipping over:

What Bible do you use? Who translated your scriptures? Someone actually told me earlier that it was not the Magisterium. Is that true?

If it is true that, as Daniel Wallace, text critic and General editor of the NET Bible says, all translation involves increadible amounts of interpretation (those of you with Greek and Hebrew background know this), how did they translate the Scriptures since they would be the ultimate interpreter of it? Were they given this authority by the Magisterium?

On a simular note: what version of the Greek and Hebrew text do the translators use? If they us NA27 or UBS4, are they relying on others to give them the right text? If they do not use these, what do they use and who are the text critics that decide what the original is (since there are over 300,000 varients in the New Testament alone to say nothing of the Hebrew).

I know that you may not know what I am talking about, but I would be interested to know from whomever is qualified to answer.

Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

In scripture Our Lord appointed an authority on earth.Scripture is indeed without error, but you can see that there are people who read scripture can come up with all kind of meanings on the same scripture. God did not leave us to wing it.In fact throughout the old testament God always appointed a visible leader. Infalibilty is on issues on faith and morals, and there are certain issues that aren’t spoken about in scripture,such as cloning,ect.That is where oral leadership is neccessary.There is oral tradition mentioned in scripture as well. If the Lord didn’t intend on structure within His Church to continue Judas would have not been replaced. God Bless

 

[michaelp]

Lisa4Catholics:

In scripture Our Lord appointed an authority on earth.Scripture is indeed without error, but you can see that there are people who read scripture can come up with all kind of meanings on the same scripture. God did not leave us to wing it.In fact throughout the old testament God always appointed a visible leader. Infalibilty is on issues on faith and morals, and there are certain issues that aren’t spoken about in scripture,such as cloning,ect.That is where oral leadership is neccessary.There is oral tradition mentioned in scripture as well. If the Lord didn’t intend on structure within His Church to continue Judas would have not been replaced. God Bless

Don’t get me wrong Lisa, it is a nice system and might even be pragmatic if the traditions could agree, but there is no justification for it. If God actually expected me to follow by this elaborate of a system, He needs to be ALOT more clear. Matt. 16 just ain’t going to cut it.

But, we my just agree to disagree and I respect that.

This is a good thread that you started. Thanks for doing it.

Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Keep that prayer going. God Bless

 

[Philthy]

“In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.” That is our modo.

Also, I don’t start with the need to have agreement with everyone on everything. I don’t know why everyone thinks this has to be. Unity among diversity. This is the way that it has always been. Christ’s prayer for unity was for an ontological unity that has been fullfilled by the baptism of the Spirit, not an absolute creedal unity on all matters.

Again, there are not that many people on this site that agree on much, so why should I think that you live by this standard that you set up (i.e. that all should be in agreement on everything) when I don’t even see it here on the Catholic Apologetics website. (Which by the way has the most informed Roman Catholics that I have ever seen).

Michael

You sound like a lone ranger type - comfortable making your own rules as you deem necessary. I can relate. The problem is there is such a thing as the Truth. Don’t forget it. And your comment (bolded above) misses the mark entirely. Everyone Catholic on this site recognizes that the Catholic Church is the source of the “final word” on Christian Truth - not our individual opinions. That is radically and fundamentally opposed to the concept of " I believe what I believe for my own good reasons and I’m OK with you believing what you believe for your own good reasons as long as we both mean to do well."

Phil

 

[MrS]

Philthy:

You sound like a lone ranger type - comfortable making your own rules as you deem necessary. I can relate. The problem is there is such a thing as the Truth. Don’t forget it. And your comment (bolded above) misses the mark entirely. Everyone Catholic on this site recognizes that the Catholic Church is the source of the “final word” on Christian Truth - not our individual opinions. That is radically and fundamentally opposed to the concept of " I believe what I believe for my own good reasons and I’m OK with you believing what you believe for your own good reasons as long as we both mean to do well."

Phil

That is a fair observation Phil. Dr Hahn has stated that the “good is the enemy of the best”. When it comes to discussions like this, we need to remember that there are others who are just viewing these posts. They deserve the truth. Comprimising the truth is un-Catholic.

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:

You sound like a lone ranger type - comfortable making your own rules as you deem necessary. I can relate. The problem is there is such a thing as the Truth. Don’t forget it. That is radically and fundamentally opposed to the concept of " I believe what I believe for my own good reasons and I’m OK with you believing what you believe for your own good reasons as long as we both mean to do well."

Phil

No, I am not a lone Ranger. That is why I am learning from you–someone of an entirely different tradition.

And your comment (bolded above) misses the mark entirely. Everyone Catholic on this site recognizes that the Catholic Church is the source of the “final word” on Christian Truth - not our individual opinions.

OK, why do catholics on this site disagree? Because the infallible Magisterium is sometimes hard to interpret? You still have to make up your own mind.

All you have done is pushed the individual interpretation from the infallible Scripture to the infallible Magisterium. It is always and finally the responsibility of the individual. I will just do this with Scripture and you do it with the Magisterium. I deal with our divisions over the interpretation of Scripture, you deal with the divisions over the interpretation of the Magisterium. I fail to see the justification OR the benifit of this system. In theory, it is nice, but in reality it falls way short of creating the difference that you seem to think it does.

Again, this is just my opinion and I fully respect yours. I do enjoy learning from you though.

Phil, would it be possible for you to answer the question I posed a few posts up? Somebody? I really don’t know the answer. It is not a set up.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Here, I will post it again:

What Bible do you use? Who translated your scriptures? Someone actually told me earlier that it was not the Magisterium. Is that true?

If it is true that, as Daniel Wallace, text critic and General editor of the NET Bible says, all translation involves increadible amounts of interpretation (those of you with Greek and Hebrew background know this), how did they translate the Scriptures since they would be the ultimate interpreter of it? Were they given this authority by the Magisterium?

On a simular note: what version of the Greek and Hebrew text do the translators use? If they us NA27 or UBS4, are they relying on others to give them the right text? If they do not use these, what do they use and who are the text critics that decide what the original is (since there are over 300,000 varients in the New Testament alone to say nothing of the Hebrew).

I know that you may not know what I am talking about, but I would be interested to know from whomever is qualified to answer.

Michael

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

Thank you for the good questions:

The buck stops with the Scripture. It is not that difficult to interpret when you start without presuppositions.

No one ever said it was difficult to interperet - in fact it’s so easy that there are thousands of interpretations of Scripture. The difficult part is knowing when you have arrived at the Truth - and if I’m not mistaken you haven’t explained that yet.

michaelp:

I think that this is the greatest enlighenment to people who take a Hermeneutics class. When exegesis is conducted in a common sense model, and you put a little sweat behind your studies, it is not that hard.

People do hard work all of the time. They study background info for all kinds of things at their jobs and in other subjects at school. Why can’t they do this with Scripture. People are smarter than you think. You are smarter than you think! Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise . . . you will be alone at judgement without the Magisterium. All people will be held accountable for their own interpretation.

Here we go…chapter and verse please?

michaelp:

Exegesis and interpretation are all part of one’s hermeneutic. Yes, there is an authority–the Church as the community of believers, both alive and dead. This authority is not infallible though (in my opinion).

Hmmm, well lets see. The Church is “an authority” but it isn’t infallible. And what good is that? What happened to “the pillar and foundation of Truth.”? 1Tim2:15

michaelp:

Another authority is our conscience derived from general revelation.

Our conscience is not an authority. It is a personal guide and it requires proper formation.

michaelp:

A lesser authority is how God has worked through our experience. Although subjective, it is powerful and must be taken into account. Another lesser authority is our emotions as the Holy Spirit moves in us.

I see where you are going with these. This is all fine, but none of these means helps us with some of the FUNDAMENTALS of Christian life. Is Jesus actually God? Is baptism really necessary? If I believe in Jesus, does that mean I automatically go to heaven? Is it possible to lose one’s Faith? We could go on and on…

michaelp:

But the only infallible authority is the Scripture.

This would be meaningful if:

1. Scipture actually claimed this, AND
2. Scripture was SELF EVIDENT

Because these two conditions are not met, we cannot APPLY the infallibility of Scripture to arrive at infallible truth and understanding. That’s not good. Now I realize some things are pretty clear in Scripture - that’s easy enough. But there are a lot of MAJOR things that people differ on. Some people are OK with that and don’t think it’s important. Do you think Scripture indicates clearly one was or the other whether we should have unity in our beliefs?
Thanks for you thoughts…

Phil

 

[michaelp]

Again, I must respond by saying read 151 and 152.

If you don’t want to deal with these things, I do appreciate your responses so far.

Have a great evening.

Michael

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

I imagine that you are asking what is essential to believe for salvation. This is really simple.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God came and died for the sins of man after which He rose from the grave. You are a sinner who is in need of what He did. You must trust in him for your salvation.

“Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Acts 2:21)

“If confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Rom. 10:9)

“Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. . . Whether then *it was *I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” (1 Cor. 15:1-3, 11)

To me, the Scriptures are very clear. It is really not that hard to interpret this, is it?

Michael

You would think not Mike, but the first two verses you mentioned, Romans 10:9-10 and Rom10:13 seem in opposition. “Calling on the Lord” and “confessing and believing” aren’t necessarily the same. Are they? Is it implicit in rom 10:13 that Jesus is even in the picture? go ask a few Jews what they think about this - isn’t that an OT quote? And even if they both refer to Jesus, is it enough to believe it once or do you need to believe it until you die?
And it doesn’t address the whole Baptism issue AT ALL. Are you prepared to say that all infants and young children who die go to hell? You wouldn’t be the first to claim it. IF not, why not?
There are more loose ends than this and we both know it. Can you lose your salvation? It goes on and on…

Phil

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

michaelp:

Koine Greek was not the common language. I think you need to check your sources my brother.

Michael

Koine Greek was the language of trade and correspondance. It was not the common vernacular for day to day communications throughout the empire.

 

[michaelp]

Scott_Lafrance:

Koine Greek was the language of trade and correspondance. It was not the common vernacular for day to day communications throughout the empire.

Source?

So you are saying that the Corinthians did not speak Greek? How about the Roman Church? How about Timothy? How about those Peter wrote to? Come on. Read any Introduction to the New Testament and you will see.

Until the present century it had been generally accepted that the New Testament was written in a special, heavenly influenced language. However, it has become increasingly clear in modern study of the language of the New Testament that the Koine of the apostolic writings was essentially the everyday Greek of the first century A.D. Large numbers of papyrus fragments discovered in Egypt in the late nineteenth century have supported this conclusion.%between%
%between%Karleen, P. S. (1987). The handbook to Bible study : With a guide to the Scofield study system. “This book is intended as a companion to the Scofield Reference Bible”–Pref.; Includes indexes. New York: Oxford University Press.

The point here is that God was at work preparing the world for a common language and one that was a matchless vehicle of communication for clarity and preciseness to proclaim the message of the Savior. As a result, the books of the New Testament were written in the common language of the day, Koine Greek. It was not written in Hebrew or Aramaic, even though all the writers of the New Testament were Jews except for Luke, who was a Gentile. Koine Greek had become the second language of nearly everyone. --Keathly bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2077

God wrote in the common language to the common people.

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:

You would think not Mike, but the first two verses you mentioned, Romans 10:9-10 and Rom10:13 seem in opposition. “Calling on the Lord” and “confessing and believing” aren’t necessarily the same. Are they? Is it implicit in rom 10:13 that Jesus is even in the picture? go ask a few Jews what they think about this - isn’t that an OT quote? And even if they both refer to Jesus, is it enough to believe it once or do you need to believe it until you die?
And it doesn’t address the whole Baptism issue AT ALL. Are you prepared to say that all infants and young children who die go to hell? You wouldn’t be the first to claim it. IF not, why not?
There are more loose ends than this and we both know it. Can you lose your salvation? It goes on and on…

Phil

You really can’t understand these verses? Is it REALLY that hard for you? If it is, I am sorry, but it is not to me. I could suggest some good Bible study resourses if you would like.
Just go here: bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1399

BTW: Do you think I need to start a new thread posing the questions above?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

michaelp:

Source?

So you are saying that the Corinthians did not speak Greek? How about the Roman Church? How about Timothy? How about those Peter wrote to? Come on. Read any Introduction to the New Testament and you will see.

God wrote in the common language to the common people.

Peter spoke in? Jesus spoke in? The language of Alexandria, Egypt was? Of course they spoke Greek in Greece, but they SPOKE Latin in Rome and most of the western empire, but WROTE in Greek.

 

[michaelp]

Scott_Lafrance:

Peter spoke in? Jesus spoke in? The language of Alexandria, Egypt was? Of course they spoke Greek in Greece, but they SPOKE Latin in Rome and most of the western empire, but WROTE in Greek.

Even the Jerome Commentary and Raymond Brown admits to this:

Starting late in the 19th cent., papyri were found in increasing numbers in Egypt where the dry climate preserved them. These papyri were mostly popular documents-letters, bills, receipts-exactly the sort of material that Lightfoot had spoken of. The documents were written in koine, the common, form of the Gk language spoken in NT times. %between%
Gk Greek

NT New Testament

%between%Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., & Murphy, R. E. (1996, c1968). The Jerome Biblical commentary. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

And how about Dan Wallace,

…Koine Greek became the lingua Franca

of the whole Roman Empire by the first century AD…Even after Rome became the world power in the first century BC, Greek continued to penetrate distant lands. (This was due largely to Rome’s policy of assimilation of cultures already in place, rather than destruction and replacement) …Greek continued to be a universal language until at least the end of the first century AD. From about the second century on, Latin began to win out in Italy (among the populace)…

…Demotic is the spoken language of Greece today, the direct descendant of the Koine."

Daniel B. Wallace “Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics” (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1996) p. 15-17

Common language for the common people.

Hope you understand my point now. God had the Bible written to be read and heard by everyone. I am glad,

Michael