Who can Correctly Teach Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholicray
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholicray

Guest
This one is for our Protestant brothers and sisters. I recently had a conversation discussing the possibility of a Pope being a heretic and the ramifications of such a situation. Now personally I don’t think it poses a problem because I believe the teaching office of the Pope is protected by God. My Protestant brothers disagree with me though. Therefore I have the following question. How far from sin must you be in order to correctly teach Scripture? Remember sin comes in the form of actions and thoughts. Also to my Protestant brothers and sisters who do you say is qualified to teach Scripture correctly and why?
 
catholicray said:
How far from sin must you be in order to correctly teach Scripture?
Click to expand...
Hypothetical Bob adequately teaches scripture while at the same time committing coitus before marriage because truth is based upon how well it corresponds to reality, not how holy is the person of whom it comes from.
catholicray said:
teaching office of the Pope is protected by God.
Click to expand...
Remember that it is only a subset that is Ex-Cathedra.
 
Last edited:
Depends what you mean by “teach”.

To Teach as representing the position of the Church, the Bishop of Rome has this capability. Yet, he must do so in a formal manner, acknowledging and relating that he is Teaching as the Bishop of Rome.

The college of Bishops may also Teach, as representing the position of the Church. Which is the more common way, I believe.

Interpretation of Scripture (as in the understanding of a passage) may be achieved by anyone who accepts God’s revelation through Scripture and it is granted to them by God. Yet to do so as in a “Teaching” manner, which has authority over the faithful, it must be done in a formal manner (Chair of Peter/college of Bishops through council).
 
Last edited:
It has been asserted that there are actually only between 7 and 12 passages from Scripture that have been formally and definitively interpreted by the Church.

It is not prohibited to believe interpretations which do NOT contradict formal Teaching of the Church.

Even interpretations in Catholic approved Bibles, such as the NAB(RE) are not necessarily formal Church interpretations. Yet, if they do not contradict Church Doctrine, then they are permitted to be believed by the Church.
 
Last edited:
catholicray said:
This one is for our Protestant brothers and sisters. I recently had a conversation discussing the possibility of a Pope being a heretic and the ramifications of such a situation. Now personally I don’t think it poses a problem because I believe the teaching office of the Pope is protected by God. My Protestant brothers disagree with me though. Therefore I have the following question. How far from sin must you be in order to correctly teach Scripture? Remember sin comes in the form of actions and thoughts. Also to my Protestant brothers and sisters who do you say is qualified to teach Scripture correctly and why?
Click to expand...
I would say, you aren’t far from sin when we correctly teach Scripture. When you correctly teach the scripture you acknowledge that you are in fact a sinner, condemned under the law, and apart from faith in Christ, who bore the penalty of that sin on the cross, you have no hope in you. If you deny that you are a sinner, you make God out to be a liar and the truth is not in you, but if we confess our sins, God who is faithful and just will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. That being said, the truth of God’s word is not dependent upon my being sinful or saintly. If I fall, it doesn’t make God’s word less true because God’s word is true independent of me. That being said, Paul always asked his listeners to follow him, his example. So though God’s word may be true, people do need faithful examples to follow and imitate.

Who is qualified to teach Scripture correctly? The repentant person who proclaims the gospel in accordance with what the scriptures say, which were handed down to us from the apostles, is considered a faithful teacher. When you depart from the teaching of scripture either by twisting it or ripping it out of context, you are not faithful teacher.

With regard to the teaching office of the Church, the Church is charged to teach faithfully. In other words, it is an office that we are commanded to execute faithfully. When the Church does so faithfully, it is commended. When it doesn’t it is subject to rebuke and correction through the proclamation of the word of God (law and gospel). Its not that difficult.
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
Who is qualified to teach Scripture correctly? The repentant person who proclaims the gospel in accordance with what the scriptures say
Click to expand...
Thanks for your response. I’d like to follow up by asking how one can know if someone is actually repentant? I ask this because it seems to me that you could only know if you yourself are repentant.
 
catholicray said:
Thanks for your response. I’d like to follow up by asking how one can know if someone is actually repentant? I ask this because it seems to me that you could only know if you yourself are repentant.
Click to expand...
That is a good question which I think your tradition would equally have a problem answering. The point that I was making is that a person who does not believe that they need to repent or does not believe that sin is an issue would have a hard time proclaiming a gospel that proclaims us all sinful before God and in need of a savior. I think you would see this crop up in the theology of the person, and this to me seems to be born out in reality. Obviously no one other than God can know if someone is repentant with certainty, but hearing what they proclaim would probably provide indications otherwise.
 
Not all Protestants think everything a pope teaches should be written off. Anything a pope teaches should be matched up with Scripture.
Would a Catholic priest committing some sin make a sacrament like communion or baptism invalid? I think it’s similar to the topic here.
catholicray said:
Remember sin comes in the form of actions and thoughts.
Click to expand...
Then no one would be able to teach. Sure, one might be able to avoid sin by not doing anything that’s sinful but thoughts? I don’t think that’s possible at all.
 
I think you’re confusing temptation with sin. Sinful thoughts that you don’t accept aren’t sins, just temptations.
 
That’s a good point but that’s not what I had in mind.
Some Protestants believe even good works are tainted by sin because we are not always motivated to do them for the glory of God but rather for our own glory.
 
Ah…and I kind of forgot this thread was about protestants teaching. I just saw a shiny thing and went after it. 🙃

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your response. I don’t think I’m confusing them. My example would be thoughts that contraception is okay willingly in the face of Church teaching rather than the temptation to use a contraceptive. I’ll accept correction if necessary though.
 
In the title of your thread you ask a question about “teaching Scripture” but the posts are focusing on a different question, about “teaching moral theology” or “teaching about sin”. Which is it?

“Teaching Scripture” is a very broad term. Obviously there are passages, such as Luke 1:28, where a Catholic and a Protestant will almost certainly disagree. There are the “faith and works” passages in Paul where Catholics will agree with some Protestants but not with others. But those disputed verses are not the whole of Scripture, by any means.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top