[N0help4u]

Ummm... this kinda begs the question how did Christians understand their faith for the hundreds of years before there was a Bible to "say" anything... and simply avoids the history that shows there was considerable debate for 500+ years as to what books should even be CONSIDERED the bible.

The Church and the Christian faith were around a LONG TIME before there was a Bible that included the OT and the NT.... I'm not sure how you can avoid these facts.

How? They were going by what was passed down through history and THEN the Catholics came along with their teachings.

[ScottRC]

Tj3's latest definition of "interpret" is to "bend it to fit your beliefs". But apparently you have a different definition in mind. What is your definition of the word "interpret", as used in the statement "scripture can interpret scripture"?

Well said as usual... and I'm wondering if I have missed an example of this "self-interpretation" on this thread..?

I'm wondering if those who believe in this, could show an example using a bible verse.

[ScottRC]

How? They were going by what was passed down through history and THEN the Catholics came along with their teachings.

This is simply just your unsupported opinion... but does not refute the point I was making... there was NO BIBLE, but yet they were just fine with the oral teaching of the Bishops... hardly a "proof" for the Bible as the final authority.

[N0help4u]

I am still looking for the explanation of how sola scriptura is self interpretation from a personal point of view.
Seems to me that anything that is not Catholic is considered as wrong as what you call sola scriptura

[ScottRC]

I am still looking for the explanation of how sola scriptura is self interpretation from a personal point of view.
Seems to me that anything that is not Catholic is considered as wrong as what you call sola scriptura

Not at all... the Biblical relativism of sola scriptura can certainly be "right"... but it is not a objective standard.

I'm really not sure how ALL of our threads together can't show you this... we BOTH read Scripture... but yet we BOTH read it differently... the Purgatory thread is a great example.

You PERSONALLY interpret the Bible from your point of view... and I do the same... the difference is, I don't claim that mine is not personal--- and you and yours just avoid this OBVIOUS fact.

[N0help4u]

What obvious fact? I say your 'facts' are not obvious but read in between the lines to come to your Vatican's conclusions.

[JoeT777]

what obvious fact? I say your 'facts' are not obvious but read in between the lines to come to your Vatican's conclusions.

Not at all N0help, if you take an objective look Scripture, history, the teachings of the Apostles, the teachings of the Church, you’ll find them to be objectively one and the same Truth.

[ScottRC]

what obvious fact? I say your 'facts' are not obvious but read in between the lines to come to your Vatican's conclusions.

While Joe is right is his comments, the "fact" I was referring to was that you PERSONALLY interpret the Bible from your point of view... and again, (contrary to you and yours), I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that, but simply offering that opinion is not the way to determine orthodox Christian teachings.

[JoeT777]

Viewing every passage in a different context renders the Bible little more than a conflicting, contradictory collection of human writings rather than a divine revelation. Paul's instruction in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 shows us the correct way to interpret the Bible: All of it is God's inspired revelation."

2 Tim 3:16-17 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

Catholics hold Scripture to be sacred also 2Tim doesn't show that we should throw away the Church. First, the only scriptures that could be referenced in 2 Tim is the Old Testament Scripture. Second, he's saying its “profitable" for teaching, for criticizing, for correcting and for instruction of social morals which Catholics hold too. But it doesn't say that it's the only inspiration God is allowed to make. I wouldn't think Paul (The-Blinded-By-Christ's-Light, Paul) would suggest to Timothy that the Scripture is the only way he can receive God's revelation; that he live by the laws of the Old Testament ONLY? Without Apostolic Traditions and the Catholic Church's interpretation the true meaning of Paul's letter would be lost.

Not that I want to get into a different argument, but doesn't the reference to “good work” cause a problem for you?

JoeT

[cogs]

I can honestly say I did not read all 19 pages of this, just maybe half.
From what I did read:
"Tj3: Do you consider scripture itself to be the word of God and infallible?"

no. but I have something that will help you to understand the typed words.

"JoeT777:And who would be the arbiter of what the original intent is 2,000 years after the fact without Apostolic Teachings?"

Who indeed. Jesus said he would send his spirit, and not leave us as orphans, and the father said he would write his law on the hearts of men. Scripture did not become that. Men's words did not become the word of god. So something else is at work here. Especially in the area of interpretation.
It's confusing, cause we see paul interpreting scripture to the ethiopian. So we might think a man has the answer to interpretation. And jesus, as a human, seemingly 'interpreted' as well. But wasn't jesus always pointing to what he heard his father say? Were these men somehow smarter than every other man, that they knew exactly the way god wanted the scripture to be taken?
We are missing something big: the living god. I say living, because he's not a book, he's not some human brainpower. He didn't give some group special privileges to only them, so they could tell others what to do.
We all have a chance to have god speak his word to us. Then we won't need scriptures, or someone's helpful interpretation. We will have our teacher tell us exactly what he wants. I think after we learn that, we'll see scripture for what it really is. I'll keep this short, but let me ask you if you believe god is alive. If he's alive, shouldn't we be able to hear his own words? Wouldn't those words have such power in them, that:
Hbr 4:12 For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.

[ordinaryguy]

I think we all need to take a step back and define "interpretation."

Tj3 has already defined it--twice, in contradictory ways. That's why I asked what your definition was (post #170).

When we come across something we don't understand or it may seem to have various meanings, we use Scripture to interpret Scripture.

The key word here is "we". To be more precise, you might have said "we use [other parts of] Scripture to [help us accurately] interpret [those parts of] Scripture [that we find difficult or confusing]". If that's what you mean, I have no problem with it, because it is clear that the reader is the interpreter. The words do not interpret themselves, I/we/you, the readers of the words, are the interpreters.

Martin Luther put forth the amazing idea that anyone can read the Bible and allow it to interpret itself (and not depend on someone or something else to do it for them).

No, Luther's idea was that individuals could read and interpret the Bible for themselves (and not depend on someone or something else to do it for them).

gnmagazine.org discusses this type of interpretation, how "Scripture interprets Scripture" --

"The Bible itself tells us that we are to understand it as a unit; all Scripture is inspired and a divine guide for human conduct. By putting together all the scriptures on a given subject,

And who is it that selects and decides which scriptures are relevant to a given subject?

Oh yes, there's that "we" again.

we allow the Bible to interpret itself and give us a complete and coherent view of God's instruction on specific areas of life.

No, we compare various parts of the Bible to other parts that we deem relevant to formulate for ourselves "a complete and coherent view of God's instruction on specific areas of life."

Dr. David L. Cooper, the founder of The Biblical Research Society, had a "Golden Rule of Interpretation":

This "rule" is clearly intended to be used by readers of the Bible (not the book itself), to arrive at a correct understanding, i.e. an accurate interpretation, of its meaning.

When the plain sense of Scripture

makes common sense [to us],

[we should] seek no other sense;

Therefore, [we should] take every word

at its primary, ordinary,

usual, literal meaning

Unless the facts [as we know them]

of the immediate context [as we understand it],

studied [by us] in the light

Of [what we understand to be] related passages and

[what we believe to be] axiomatic and fundamental truths

indicate clearly [to us] otherwise.

[ordinaryguy]

I never said that was my intertpretation - how much longer are you going to continue to repeat that mis-representation? You have been corrected on this previously.

You did say, in Post #158,

Do you simply read what is said and take it at face value, or do you bend it to fit your beliefs. The first is not interpretation - the second is.

Earlier, in post #110 you did say,

Interpretation means to understand the original intent.

Now, as definitions of the term interpretation, "understand the original intent" is contradictory and inconsistent with "bend it to fit your beliefs".

I have pointed out this inconsistency in your usage of the word, but I have not misrepresented what you said.

But whichever definition you use, interpretation is something that the reader does. It is not something that the text itself can do, independent of the mind of the reader.

[Tj3]

The Church and the Christian faith were around a LONG TIME before there was a Bible that included the OT and the NT.... I'm not sure how you can avoid these facts.

I note the arrogance with which some folk use the phrase "The Church", as their denomination is "The Church".

The Christian church was around from the 1st century, but your denomination was not around until well after the OT and NT were written.

[Tj3]

Not at all... the Biblical relativism of sola scriptura can certainly be "right" .... but it is not a objective standard.

Notice how you redefine things. Those who have a rock solid unchanging standard of truth, you say believe in "relativism".

Your denomination follows the teachings of men which have changed and have even reversed themselves over the years, and you claim that to be a standard.

[Tj3]

Not at all N0help, if you take an objective look Scripture, history, the teachings of the Apostles, the teachings of the Church, you’ll find them to be objectively one and the same Truth.

Really? Where do you find your version of what you define as the "teachings of the Apostles"?

[Tj3]

You did say, in Post #158,

I notice that when you choose to deliberately mis-represent what I say, you neglect to provide the quote. Coincidence? I think not. Let's see what actually was said:

I SAID:
The key is how you reach that understanding. Do you simply read what is said and take it at face value, or do you bend it to fit your beliefs. The first is not interpretation - the second is.

Now note, I was giving a contrast and at no point did I say or suggest that it was a definition.

Now can we continue this discussion by handling views that you don't agree with some degree of honesty? I asked you once before because of mis-representation of what I said to quote me if you plan to refer to what I said, and you chose not to do so once again when you decided to mis-represent me.

If you cannot back you claims with the truth, then is your position worth defending?

[ordinaryguy]

The RCC didn’t come into being 325 years after Christ. It came into being when Christ ascended to Heaven

I'm OK with the idea that "The Church", the mystical body of Christ, came into being at the ascension, or maybe even long before that. But to equate the Roman Catholic Church, a religious organization, with the mystical body of Christ is crass institutional arrogance.

Consequently, we don’t find our faith or our Catholic understanding of Scripture to be “better” than others because most Christian faith entails some elements of God’s truth, but not necessarily the “fullness of faith” found in the RCC - if it did contain the same fullness then it would be the same faith.

Oh, of course not. It would be just wrong to think that fullness is "better" than partly-fullness.

Ordinaryguy’s comments: everything we read is interpreted for understanding of the content and measured against our life’s experiences; this would also include the Scriptures. Such “interpretation” is part of our intellectual reasoning.

Agreed.

It’s pure human nature.

Well, maybe not entirely pure, but pure enough.

Surly you’re not suggesting that we sleep on the Bible and learn by osmoses?

No.

Or are you suggesting that we should learn by word of mouth through our Bishops?

No.

Or should we abandon our faith and just follow you?

Oh, God no!

[ScottRC]

I'm OK with the idea that "The Church", the mystical body of Christ, came into being at the ascension, or maybe even long before that.

So which then, is the true Church?

Or is the Christian faith an amorphous mob of like-minded believers?

But to equate the Roman Catholic Church, a religious organization, with the mystical body of Christ is crass institutional arrogance.

For almost a THOUSAND years after the death of Christ there was only ONE Church... and even after the Schism, the basic foundation of what makes us THE Church (Apostolic Succession) is still found in the Orthodox faith... so I really don't see how your claim of " institutional arrogance" fits with history... after all, without that "religious organization" I'm curious as to know how in the world we would have ANY IDEA as to what was the Bible or what the "basics" were of the Christian faith as defined by the Ecumenical Councils.

I guess I'm just hoping to hear what you believe is the final authority is for determining orthodoxy since it seems you reject both the Bible and the Church....???

[Wondergirl]

2 Tim 3:16-17 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

Not that I want to get into a different argument, but doesn’t the reference to “good work” cause a problem for you?

Want to start a new thread? I'm game.

[JoeT777]

Want to start a new thread? I'm game.

NO! Its my fault for bring it up. I’m neglecting my work as it is with my participation here. Maybe another time.