[Wondergirl]

Without an authority to decide--- protected by the Holy Spirit from error--- all we have is Biblical relativism... everyone has their own personal views and no one knows what is the truth.

And who deemed which inerrent authority is to decide for you? And who is/are those inerrent authorities?

As Tom has said, Scripture interprets and supports itself. No relativism, no personal view is involved.

[Tj3]

I certainly can... at least I hope I can... but I certainly would not claim that my understanding is right for you.

Are you saying that you believe in a relativistic gospel? It changes depending upon who reads it?

It all boils down to this (IMO): When two people, both using Scripture to support their claims, have differing interpretations of a Christian teaching, how in the world do they decide who is right?

That is exactly the point. Scripture (God's word) interprets scripture. Mis-interpretations arise when men try to take the place of God.

[ScottRC]

And who deemed which inerrent authority is to decide for you? And who is/are those inerrent authorities?

I believe that answer is quite clear when one takes an unbiased look at scripture and history.

As Tom has said, Scripture interprets and supports itself. No relativism, no personal view is involved.

The rest of the world calls this "circular logic"... I'm glad it works for you folks, but I hope you can appreciate why some of us can't support such a logical fallacy.

[Tj3]

I believe that answer is quite clear when one takes an unbiased look at scripture and history.

I, for one, have. And having done so, it is not sufficient for you to simply tell us that we are wrong.

The rest of the world calls this "circular logic"... I'm glad it works for you folks, but I hope you can appreciate why some of us can't support such a logical fallacy.

I trust that you are aware that the Bible is not just one book, nor one written by men. As a result, we know two things about this book which are not true about other single books:

1) It is not an individual book. Even by the world's logic, using third party sources to validate another work is adequate evidence. In this case, we can validate a doctrine found in one book, or indeed interpret a doctrine found in one book by 66 other books, written by many different authors separated by many centuries, in many different locations. Even in the secular world, ignoring the divine nature of this book, that would be considered overwhelming evidence of a fact.

2) The book has numerous human authors, but we also have the evidence of the supernatural inspiration of the book by the fact that the book does not contradict itself. That being the case, we can use one book in the Bible to test, clarify and validate another book in the Bible, knowing that each provides an infallible perspective on a part of the whole of God's word.

If we were to ignore the involvement of the Holy Spirit in the creation of this book, it would be like having a set of books, written by a number of people who had been lecture by one man, and each sat down and wrote what this man taught them from their notes. In so doing, each would have a single source of information, therefore would not contradict, but at the same time, each would write from a different perspective. This would allow us to better understand one teaching found in one book, by using the others to interpret it. In human terms, that would be consider good enough to establish the truth of what this man taught. When we add the perfect revelation, inspiration and guidance of God upon the hands and minds of those who penned scripture, and the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth (the same Holy Spirit who indwells all believers), we can trust God's word to inpret itself.

Not circular logic even in human terms, and indeed the approach is not only sound in secular terms, but it is a standard approach to study and research used every day by students and researchers in all fields of study around the world every day.

[ordinaryguy]

Who said that it could?

You did.

Scripture says that no man is to interpret scripture and that would mean you, me, your priest, my pastor, the pope or anyone else.

I am saying that no man can interpret scripture.

Interpretation means to understand the original intent.

And how could this process which leads to understanding occur anywhere else than in the mind of the person who reads the words?

Scripture interprets and supports itself

Scripture (God's word) interprets scripture.

Unless you have a different meaning of "interprets" than the one given by Tj above (to understand the intent behind the words), these statements are nonsensical, i.e. "The written word understands the intent of the written word" Please! The written word is ink on paper. It understands nothing. Interpretation and understanding are acts of thought that happen in the human mind. If you had said that only a Spirit-led human mind can properly interpret scripture, I wouldn't disagree, but to say that "no (hu)man can interpret scripture" is just preposterous. Reading scripture and interpreting its meaning are mental acts that are so closely interwoven as to be inseparable.

[Tj3]

You did.

No I did not. If you want to claim otherwise, post the quote and the message # that it came from.

What I did say is that scripture interprets itself.

See also post #124.

[Wondergirl]

No I did not. If you want to claim otherwise, post the quote and the message # that it came from.

What I did say is that scripture interprets itself.

See also post #124.

Tom, give him an example of how that would work, how it would be accomplished, that scripture interprets scripture.

[ScottRC]

Unless you have a different meaning of "interprets" than the one given by Tj above (to understand the intent behind the words), these statements are nonsensical, i.e., "The written word understands the intent of the written word" Please!

Well said... I really don't understand how anyone could believe that their interpretation of Scirpture is someone not their own personal understanding.

When we look at the basic description of the process:
Exegesis
(from the Greek ἐξηγεῖσθαι 'to lead out')
....involves an extensive and critical interpretation of an authoritative text."

... one is hard pressed to toss this out in favor of "it interprets itself".

So either I'm not getting a proper explanation from those who believe this, or you are quite correct that it is "nonsensical".

Thank you for your contribution to this thread.

[ScottRC]

Tom, give him an example of how that would work, how it would be accomplished, that scripture interprets scripture.

Please... that would be very helpful... but I would ask you to copy it down for me since I have that member on "ignore" and won't be able to see the post.

Thanks for your help Wondergirl!:)

[Wondergirl]

I have that member on "ignore" and won't be able to see the post.

Good grief!! This is the Christianity Board!! Now, as your penance, sing the Barney song three times.

If Tom doesn't cough up an example, I will.

*going to the kitchen to make a chocolate ice cream cone*

[ordinaryguy]

What I did say is that scripture interprets itself.

Yes, and you said

I am saying that no man can interpret scripture.

Tom, give him an example of how that would work, how it would be accomplished, that scripture interprets scripture.

Do you really not see the fallacy here? Any "example" you cite, and the meaning that you attach to it is you, using your mind, making your choices about how to accurately interpret scripture, not "scripture interpreting itself". Written words are inanimate objects that are not capable of interpreting themselves or anything else. Interpretation is an activity of the human mind. It's OK. Why are you so insistent on denying that you do it?

[Wondergirl]

Why are you so insistent on denying that you do it?

But Tom is correct. Scripture supports and interprets Scripture. What do the words in Scripture say?

[ScottRC]

But Tom is correct. Scripture supports and interprets Scripture. What do the words in Scripture say?

Do you have an example yet?

I really think that would help.

Maybe pick a topic... the Eucharist... baptismal regerneration... justification... anything... and please show me how the Bible can interpret itself and communicate what it interpreted to you and I.

[ordinaryguy]

Scripture supports and interprets Scripture.

Scripture doesn't interpret scripture, people interpret scripture.

What do the words in Scripture say?

The words "say" many things. But until a real, live, thinking person interprets them, they mean nothing. Meaning is a creation of the reader's mind, not an attribute of the words.

I really don't understand this aversion to taking responsibility for your own interpretation. You can say that the Holy Spirit guides you to the right one if you want, but what's the point of clinging to this silly notion that you aren't doing any interpreting? It's patently absurd.

[ordinaryguy]

Thank you for your contribution to this thread.

You're quite welcome, but I don't agree that the Catholic Church is the final arbiter of the "true" interpretation of scripture or anything else. As far as I'm concerned, it's a large, human-created and human-run organization, not substantively different from the U.S. Government, General Motors, or the United Nations, just a little older.

[ScottRC]

You're quite welcome, but I don't agree that the Catholic Church is the final arbiter of the "true" interpretation of scripture or anything else.

Fair enough... I still appreciate your contributions.:D

... but that does beg the question: How would you suggest that we determine what the "true" interpretation of Scripture is?

[ordinaryguy]

How would you suggest that we determine what the "true" interpretation of Scripture is?

I would suggest that we not spend another moment trying to determine what the "true" interpretation of Scripture is. It is useful and meaningful to different people in different circumstances with different personal histories and different beliefs for a variety of purposes. I'm happy to leave it at that.

[ScottRC]

I would suggest that we not spend another moment trying to determine what the "true" interpretation of Scripture is. It is useful and meaningful to different people in different circumstances with different personal histories and different beliefs for a variety of purposes. I'm happy to leave it at that.

Well I'm certain that's just fine for an observer... but for those of us who live our lives as Christians, CORRECT understanding of Christian orthodoxy is of paramount importance.

I'm sure that you understand that for those of us who are Christians, we believe that knowing what God wants for us to do in this life is pretty darn important... and without a objective standard for determining orthodoxy---- there can be only confusion.

And that just won't do.

But thanks again for your opinion.

[Tj3]

Tom, give him an example of how that would work, how it would be accomplished, that scripture interprets scripture.

Okay, to make it easy to understand, let's look at an example from the secular world, just to show that what we are talking about is nothing out of the ordinary.

If one was asked to find out accurately what an historic figure, let’s say Winston Churchill, believed or taught about certain events in history, how would you go about it?

Well, there are a few options:
- Talk to the person, but in the case of Churchill, he is dead, so that is not an option.
- Talk to people who may have interviewed or known him very well. Again, few if any people who fall into that category would still be available, so we need to discount that also.
- Read what people who have done similar studies say about what he thought. This is a real option, but it is important to realize that any writings like this will have biases, but their thoughts may provide some pointers.
- Read what he actually wrote. Even if you read what others have to say about the topic, to verify the accuracy of what they say, you will want to go back and verify this from the source.

This is the typical approach that any student would take to determine that
They have an accurate understand for any area of study, yet so many people will say that this just isn’t possible with the Bible. Why not? I would suggest that not only is it possible, for the sake of accuracy, it is essential.

Further, unlike other topics, we have an additional promise from God that comes into effect when those who have received Jesus as Saviour study His word.

John 16:13-15
13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all
Truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.
NKJV

Thus since all scripture is inspired by God, we who have received Jesus as Saviour can effectively be guided into understanding the truth by the author, further helping to ensure accuracy of our understanding.

[Tj3]

Yes, and you said

I would ask you to aim for accuracy when you make such claims. Here is what you accused me of (quote from message #108)

"It seems preposterous to me that meaning can be derived from written language without any interpretation at all"

Note you accused me of saying that the written language can have no interpretation at all.

That is much different than what I said. Please, in the future provide the quote if you are going to respond to something that I said. Gross mis-representations do not move forward our understanding nor the credibility of your position.