The blessing and the curse of personal interpretation of scripture

SabbathBlessings said:

We are going in circles. We will have to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Yes. . .because we are still left with the word of God in
sin was not taken into account because there was no law (Romans 5:13), and
they did not sin (by breaking a command as did Adam)--Romans 5:14.

Clare73 said:

Yes. . .because we are still left with the word of God in
sin was not taken into account because there was no law (Romans 5:13), and
they did not sin (by breaking a command as did Adam)--Romans 5:14.

Click to expand...

I already provided the context and scriptures, repeating yourself doesn’t change anything, so we continue to agree to disagree.

SabbathBlessings said:

I already provided the context and scriptures, repeating yourself doesn’t change anything, so we continue to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

I addressed those Scriptures and context, but we are still left with the word of God in
sin was not taken into account because there was no law (Romans 5:13), and
they did not sin (by breaking a command as did Adam)--Romans 5:14.

Clare73 said:

I addressed those Scriptures and context, but we are still left with the word of God in
sin was not taken into account because there was no law (Romans 5:13), and
they did not sin (by breaking a command as did Adam)--Romans 5:14.

Click to expand...

You actually have not addressed the scriptures, you keep repeating yourself. For the sake of the other posters on this thread I’m bowing out of this discussion because like I said previously we are going in circles and will have to leave it as we disagree.

SabbathBlessings said:

You actually have not addressed the scriptures, you keep repeating yourself. For the sake of the other posters on this thread I’m bowing out of this discussion because like I said previously we are going in circles and will have to leave it as we disagree.

Click to expand...

I addressed your Scriptures (post #119), but we are still left with the word of God in
sin was not taken into account because there was no law (Romans 5:13), and
they did not sin (by breaking a command as did Adam)--Romans 5:14.

Clare73 said:

Except for salvation through faith, not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9), which it took over 1900 years for the Catholic church to acknowledge, right?

Click to expand...

We don't believe salvation is from works. Never have.

Root of Jesse said:

We don't believe salvation is from works. Never have.

Click to expand...

What saves you?

Fervent said:

Look, if you want to trust the words of men over the word of God that's on you. I'm not trying to convince you, simply pointing out that your denigration of the Bible is inappropriate. There is no need for authorities providing official interpretations when each of us can read for ourselves, and simply because people have cherry picked to support heretical positions doesn't change that a true seeker of truth will be able to construct true doctrine from Scripture alone. Abuse does not say anything about proper use.

Click to expand...

Where have I denigrated the Bible? And realize that,, until 1500, there were no way to mass print Bibles and most people were illiterate,, so there was a need. SoDid Jesus provide for an authoritative transmission of faith? Or not? How do you know the difference between a dogma and an opinion? Dogmas are those things which must be believed. All Christians have them. And if you think you know by reading, then you're your own pope.

Root of Jesse said:

Where have I denigrated the Bible? And realize that,, until 1500, there were no way to mass print Bibles and most people were illiterate,, so there was a need. SoDid Jesus provide for an authoritative transmission of faith? Or not? How do you know the difference between a dogma and an opinion? Dogmas are those things which must be believed. All Christians have them. And if you think you know by reading, then you're your own pope.

Click to expand...

You denigrate the Bible by saying it is insufficient, that it requires additional input. By dogma I assume you mean 1st order issues, which can be distinguished because to maintain them requires altering the canon. Every heretic has his verse, but archheretics seek to remove/alter the Scripture in some way. Either through additional material, as in the Mormons, or through removal/alteration of the text itself. Arianism is only supportable if John 1 is significantly altered as the Greek makes it abundantly clear that 1)Logos is God, 2)Logos became flesh, and 3)that flesh is Jesus. The fact that you think there needs to be some collection of men(men who have repeatedly demonstrated that they are corruptable at every level) as the means of transmission is repugnant to me.

Fervent said:

You denigrate the Bible by saying it is insufficient, that it requires additional input. By dogma I assume you mean 1st order issues, which can be distinguished because to maintain them requires altering the canon. Every heretic has his verse, but archheretics seek to remove/alter the Scripture in some way. Either through additional material, as in the Mormons, or through removal/alteration of the text itself. Arianism is only supportable if John 1 is significantly altered as the Greek makes it abundantly clear that 1)Logos is God, 2)Logos became flesh, and 3)that flesh is Jesus. The fact that you think there needs to be some collection of men(men who have repeatedly demonstrated that they are corruptable at every level) as the means of transmission is repugnant to me.

Click to expand...

I never said it was insufficient. If thats the level of your interpretive skills, you need education. I defined dogma.
You're right about Arians. My point is, without authority to help understand Scripture, you can go off into the weeds. So, until you answer my question directly, you refuse to engage, just making assertions with no backing.

Clare73 said:

What saves you?

Click to expand...

Faith, grace. Works proceed from them.

Root of Jesse said:

We don't believe salvation is from works. Never have.

Click to expand...

You aren't very familiar with historic Catholicism out here on the street.

Clare73 said:

You aren't very familiar with historic Catholicism out here on the street.

Click to expand...

Actually, I'm very familiar. Tell me what you're referring to, and I'll straighten you out. Most of the time, its an example of Catholics not living up to their faith...

Root of Jesse said:

Actually, I'm very familiar. Tell me what you're referring to, and I'll straighten you out. Most of the time, its an example of Catholics not living up to their faith...

Click to expand...

I already have. . .salvation by faith alone, not by works, for eons was not taught by the Catholic church.

Do they teach it today?

Clare73 said:

I already have. . .salvation by faith alone, not by works, for eons was not taught by the Catholic church.

Do they teach it today?

Click to expand...

You're wrong, but where in Scripture are 'faith' and 'alone written together. Also, prove that the Catholic teaching has ever been by works?

Root of Jesse said:

You're wrong, but where in Scripture are 'faith' and 'alone written together. Also, prove that the Catholic teaching has ever been by works?

Click to expand...

Good Day, Root Of Jesse

In his commentary on Romans, Roman Catholic Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. comments that Luther was not the first to invoke sola fide in his translation of Romans. Others used the term in a broader context as well. Below the astericks is what Fitzmyer states on pp. 360-361 of Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993).

**********************************
At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24). [DTK’s note - If I may be so bold as to correct Fitzmyer’s reference here to Theodoret. The reference in Migne is not PG 93.100, but should be PG 83.1001 - Obviously this may be a typo on the part of Fitzmyer, but at any rate I checked the reference myself and found it elsewhere to be PG 83.1001].

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”).
**********************************

Plus, Catholic translations prior to Luther used the terminology of faith alone with respect to Romans 3:28. The Nuremberg Bible of 1483 had "allein durch den glauben," while the Italian Bibles of Geneva in 1476 and even 1538 had "per sola fide."

There ya go... I will leave the other question in Clare's capable hands.

In Him,

Bill

Root of Jesse said:

I never said it was insufficient. If thats the level of your interpretive skills, you need education. I defined dogma.
You're right about Arians. My point is, without authority to help understand Scripture, you can go off into the weeds. So, until you answer my question directly, you refuse to engage, just making assertions with no backing.

Click to expand...

The authority of Scripture alone is sufficient, there doesn't need to be any higher authority for interpretation. Historic positions, language criticism, text criticism, historic reconstruction, and other scholastic tools can contribute to the interpretive process but what is written in the Bible is enough for establishing the essentials of the faith(those things common to all Christians that are necessary to make one a Christian). Issues that are not clearly elaborated within its pages don't need to be fully elaborated on and most of the disagreements come from individuals elevating opinion and calling it dogma.

Fervent said:

The authority of Scripture alone is sufficient, there doesn't need to be any higher authority for interpretation. Historic positions, language criticism, text criticism, historic reconstruction, and other scholastic tools can contribute to the interpretive process but what is written in the Bible is enough for establishing the essentials of the faith(those things common to all Christians that are necessary to make one a Christian). Issues that are not clearly elaborated within its pages don't need to be fully elaborated on and most of the disagreements come from individuals elevating opinion and calling it dogma.

Click to expand...

Good Day, Fervent

Sorry to butt in here but the circular reasoning of the Roman Catholic denomination Their name it claim it assertion of authority is clearly a fallacy. It is unfortunate that members of that church have subjectively bought in to the illogic premise.

But for the sake of augment let's stipulate they really need an authority to tell them what Scripture means. Here in lies the problem that supposed authority is not sufficient for them to do so:

Consider:

Raymond E. Brown: Roman Catholics who appeal explicitly to Spirit-guided church teaching are often unaware that their church has seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture, i.e., what the author meant when he wrote it. Most often the church has commented on the on-going meaning of Scripture by resisting the claims of those who would reject established practices or beliefs as unbiblical. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 31.

Ludwig Ott, while commenting on Pius IX’s papal bull Ineffabilis that defined the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary, wrote: “The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage [i.e. Gen. 3:15]. It must be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.” Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., reprinted 1974), p. 200.

Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid: . . the dogma being defined here is Peter’s primacy and authority over the Church — not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. It’s always possible that while the doctrine defined is indeed infallible, some of the proofs adduced for it end up being incorrect. Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999), p. 254.


So to be clear the members of the Roman Catholic Church suppose that authority is needed, but in every practical way such authority (the self named and self claimed... fallacy) as it is. Really does not solve the issue of their members looking to them for understanding and explaining what the text means by what it says.

The Roman Church in my view lacks the ability to do so, it is there for not a question of authority as asserted by it's members, but a question of ability.

My .02 cents!

IN HIm,

Bill

Clare73 said:

Well, the error of denying "salvation through faith, not by works" (Ephesians 2:8-9),

Click to expand...

The CC teaches that man cannot save himself, that he cannot possibly be righteous, which would justify him, or even move himself in any sufficient manner towards the true God who can justify him, without and apart from grace. But the church also teaches that the new covenant is not about excusing man from being and living righteously either. In fact, once justified, it provides the only authentic means for man to accomplish that very thing, now with God rather than apart from Him, by the Spirit instead of by the letter, under grace rather than under the law.

"He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2 Cor 3:6

"If the ministry that brought condemnation [Old Covenant] was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!" 2 Cor 3:9

“He thus condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteous standard of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Rom 8:4

Righteousness realized and expressed under the new covenant is as it should be-and as it must be. We're not merely saved, but saved unto righteousness, which makes us salvageable as we remain in God, living by the Spirit, cooperating in His work.

“Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law.” Gal 5:16-18

"Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:12-13

Clare73 said:

the selling of indulgences, etc.

Click to expand...

I've had to deal with many such issues of course, some much worse yet, especially as I was Protestant myself for quite some time. The church teaches that the gift of infallibility only ensures that error will not enter official church teachings, the basic body of Christian beliefs received and taught by the church concerning faith and morals that pertain to the salvation of man. The selling of indulgences was never such a teaching of the church, but rather an abuse of power, an ignoring and failure to heed those teachings in fact, a failure to follow the gospel of love to put it a simpler way. Man behaving badly, IOW, which is what even the redeemed will continue to do at times, the attraction to covetousness, the concupiscence that continues to tempt and test us, still remaining in him even though teachers and leaders will be held to a higher level of accountability. But no human being is impeccable, even though perfection is the ultimate ideal and goal. God didn't create man to be a sinner after all-and sin only brings misery at the end of the day.

And this is one area where I needed to learn a thing or two. The more I looked for myself into CC teachings, including their sources and reasons behind them, the more impressed I became with them. At the same time, the more I began to truly recognize my own faults and failings, my own unholiness, the less focused I became on criticizing anyone else, including the church and church leaders (bashing the CC, especially, being an old and venerated pastime), for their own personal failings. The church is actually no more than a group of admitted sinners, a giant step in itself for man, in the ideal sense in any case. And the church that I was attending at the time, AOG in this case, turned out to be a perfect test-bed for my observing and experiencing the human condition of our wanting to be right, wanting to be holy, and living in a state where they felt they were holy while almost desperately trying to prove themselves to be so at times. Then the pastor, who was sort of a demi-god in their eyes who claimed to never be attracted to sin once he was a new creation in Christ, later ended up splitting the church due to his marital infidelity. I certainly became even less impressed by man than I was before that.

Clare73 said:

One authority outside Scripture for the preservation of truth from error likewise is not a guarantee of no error.

Click to expand...

We all become the authority outside Scripture whenever we interpret it. And we all, generally speaking, consider our interpretations to be the correct ones (infallibly so?) regardless of disagreement with another’s interpretations. And the concept that such a single, external, Spirit-led human authority, the church established by God, should be a necessary element in maintaining an accurate unified body of beliefs is not at all an unreasonable one at least, regardless of where or how we might identify that church.

fhansen said:

The CC teaches that man cannot save himself, that he cannot possibly be righteous, which would justify him, or even move himself in any sufficient manner towards the true God who can justify him, without and apart from grace.

Click to expand...

Non-denial. . .does not state an exlcusion of works from justification and salvation (Romans 4:5; Ephesians 2:8-9).
You owe me better than that.

But the church also teaches that the new covenant is not about excusing man from being and living righteously either. In fact, once justified, it provides the only authentic means for man to accomplish that very thing, now with God rather than apart from Him, by the Spirit instead of by the letter, under grace rather than under the law.

"He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2 Cor 3:6

"If the ministry that brought condemnation [Old Covenant] was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!" 2 Cor 3:9

“He thus condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteous standard of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Rom 8:4

Righteousness realized and expressed under the new covenant is as it should be-and as it must be. We're not merely saved, but saved unto righteousness, which makes us salvageable as we remain in God, living by the Spirit, cooperating in His work.

“Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law.” Gal 5:16-18

"Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:12-13

I've had to deal with many such issues of course, some much worse yet, especially as I was Protestant myself for quite some time. The church teaches that the gift of infallibility only ensures that error will not enter official church teachings, the basic body of Christian beliefs received and taught by the church concerning faith and morals that pertain to the salvation of man. The selling of indulgences was never such a teaching of the church, but rather an abuse of power, an ignoring and failure to heed those teachings in fact, a failure to follow the gospel of love to put it a simpler way. Man behaving badly, IOW, which is what even the redeemed will continue to do at times, the attraction to covetousness, the concupiscence that continues to tempt and test us, still remaining in him even though teachers and leaders will be held to a higher level of accountability. But no human being is impeccable, even though perfection is the ultimate ideal and goal. God didn't create man to be a sinner after all-and sin only brings misery at the end of the day.

And this is one area where I needed to learn a thing or two. The more I looked for myself into CC teachings, including their sources and reasons behind them, the more impressed I became with them. At the same time, the more I began to truly recognize my own faults and failings, my own unholiness, the less focused I became on criticizing anyone else, including the church and church leaders (bashing the CC, especially, being an old and venerated pastime), for their own personal failings. The church is actually no more than a group of admitted sinners, a giant step in itself for man, in the ideal sense in any case. And the church that I was attending at the time, AOG in this case, turned out to be a perfect test-bed for my observing and experiencing the human condition of our wanting to be right, wanting to be holy, and living in a state where they felt they were holy while almost desperately trying to prove themselves to be so at times. Then the pastor, who was sort of a demi-god in their eyes who claimed to never be attracted to sin once he was a new creation in Christ, later ended up splitting the church due to his marital infidelity. I certainly became even less impressed by man than I was before that.
We all become the authority outside Scripture whenever we interpret it. And we all, generally speaking, consider our interpretations to be the correct ones (infallibly so?) regardless of disagreement with another’s interpretations.

Click to expand...

And the concept that such a single, external, Spirit-led human authority, the church established by God, should be a necessary element in maintaining an accurate unified body of beliefs is not at all an unreasonable one at least, regardless of where or how we might identify that church.

Click to expand...

It's not about "reasonable," it's about preservation from doctrinal error, which record of the Catholic church is not golden--but maybe sterling, I'll give it that.

But that lapse in golden made a heck of a big split in Christianity some centuries ago, which I don't think will ever be mended.