By what authority do we interpret scripture?

Agnus;
You are in error. The Bible DOES give itself as the SOLE authority for faith and practice.
2Ti 3:15
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

Notice those four words...doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction....
These are from Scripture, NOT from some fellow we wrongly call "Early Church Fathers" since Jesus said , Mt 23:9
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
So we see that the RCC has greatly erred and is not to be trusted to "interpret" Scripture since they cannot get even the plainest things right.

 

"Actually there is, if you have trained and studied the customs and cultures of the Jews of Christ's time."

(Even) Jacob Neusner admits that there are no authorative texts of the customs and cultures of the Jews of Christ's time except the NT and an occasioal Roman document.

 

1. Well, you just quoted scripture in an attempt to prove your point, didn't you? In doing this, you helped support the point that scripture is our authority.

2. You are using the above quote out of context. In the context of the above quote from Matt 18, it is about church discipline. It has nothing to do with saying the church interprets scripture for us. In fact, the Matt 18 instructions are telling the church how to discipline someone. How do we discipline someone? Read Matt. 18. See?

 

AA) It is a slick and tricky excuse for Ex Cathera !

As long as Joseph Ratzinger doesn't carry the Peter's Cathera, we should not trust him, right ? Watch out whether he carries the chair !
When he doesn't carry the chair we should not trust what he says, he can change his words, instead we should look up our Lord Jesus, right?
Does the chair have a special power? Do you believe it ?


BB) So, you don't trust Johannine Comma, right?
This was dealt with intensive in other threads in Bible Version/Translations.
Let me point out shortly:

1. History

Now, to specifics, the evidence for the early existence of the Johannine Comma is found in the following sources (some abbreviations are made when quoting the source - if there are questions, I can give the specifics):​

1) 200 - Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8) ​

2) 250 - Cyprian, who writes, "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'and the Three are One'" (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215) ​

3) 350 - Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6) ​

4) 350 - Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, col. 359) ​

5) 350 - Athanasius cites the verse (Gill) ​

6) 415 - Council of Carthage appeals to the verse as a basic text proving a fundamental doctrine when contending with the Arians (Ruckman, "History of the NT Church", Vol. I, p. 146) ​

7) 450-530 - several orthodox African writers quote the verse when defending the doctrine of [Christ] ... against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis (MPL, vol. 62, col. 243)
B) Victor Vitensis (Vienna, vol. vii, p. 60)
C) Fulgentius (MPL, vol. 65, col. 500) ​

8) 500 - Cassiodorus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 70, col. 1373) ​

9) 550 - Old Latin ms r has the verse ​

10) 550 - The "Speculum" contains the verse ​

11) 750 - Wianburgensis cites the verse ​

12) 800 - Jerome's Vulgate includes the verse ​

13) 1150 - minuscule ms 88 in the margin ​

14) 1200-1400 - Waldensian Bibles have the verse ​

15) 1500 - ms 61 has the verse ​

16) various witnesses cited in Nestle's 26th edition for a replacement of the text as it stands with the Comma: 221 v.l.;2318 vg[cl]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r; and other important Latin mss.​

2. Intrinsic evidence from Bible:

In this particular case, if we omit the Comma, we are faced with tremendous grammatical difficulties. If we leave the verse as it stands in most Greek texts, we are given "witnesses" (hoy marturountes) in verse 7 which are masculine, with three neuter nouns in verse 8 (to pneuma kai to hudor kai to aima), which are then said to agree as one. In other words, by the rule of Greek syntax known as the "power of attraction" which says that the masculines among a group control the gender of a neuter connected with that group, we are given three masculine witnesses which are supposed to agree as one neuter witness. This is a grammatical impossibility. The genders don't match. On the other hand, if you accept the Comma as a part of the text, you would have two masculine subjects (the Father and the Word, "ho patare, ho logos") to agree with the masculine witnesses. (I hated this stuff when I was taking Greek - I can't believe I'm having to deal with it again!) It is therefore seen that on the basis of internal considerations the inclusion of the text is a must in order to avoid violating basic Greek grammar.​

The most critical evidence comes from Bible itself. Without Comma ( as KJV), there is a critical error in grammar, because the pronouns in verse 8 are masculine while the words without Comma are all neuter gender.

Thousands of Latin texts support KJV Comma as well.

Conclusion : King James Version is correct in 1 John 5:7

 

At this time, the canon was still incomplete. The oral tradition became part of scripture. Don't you think God was able to get into the Bible what he wanted us to know? Why would he leave out stuff we need to know?

Of course there is a teaching function of the church. But what is it based on? The Scriptures! How do we know false doctrine? The Scriptures! How do we know the qualifications for elders and overseers? The Scriptures!

 

Not everyone who is disagreeing with you, Agnus Dei, is romaphobic. :smilewinkgrin:

At this time, the canon was still incomplete. The oral tradition became part of scripture. Don't you think God was able to get into the Bible what he wanted us to know? Why would he leave out stuff we need to know?

Of course there is a teaching function of the church. But what is it based on? The Scriptures! How do we know false doctrine? The Scriptures! How do we know the qualifications for elders and overseers? The Scriptures!

 

I answered your question through Scripture in post # 15. I find it odd that you never bothered to respond to it.

 

2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for |doctrine|, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete” (ESV|KJV, NKJV|ASV).

This indicates the source of Scripture and I treat it as correspondence from God Himself.

From 1 Corinthians 4:6 "I Corinthians 4:6 “learn to observe the precept| `Do not go beyond what is written.’” (TCNT|TNIV).

This suggests to me that if it is not explicitly written in Scripture, I cannot hold it to be a matter of dogma. No person's declaration can have that type of authority. Many people have excellent teaching on Scripture and are worth listening to and learning from, but ultimately it cannot be a dogmatic unless it is in Scripture.

2 Timothy 2:15 says “Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth” (ASV).
I am to make my own effort to study and learn to handle the Scriptures properly. Many, many people are well qualified to point things out to me -- but ultimately, it is I who must approach God's Holy Word and be sure that I am handling it correctly.

Therefore, by what authority to I interpret Scripture? By God's directive, I go to the Word myself and do the very best that I can, and I believe that He guides and assists in various ways -- but at no point in this life at least will I be perfect about it nor will He give me `all the answers,' because All-Knowing about anything is His place and His alone.

 

At the time of that writing, the only scripture that was recognized as scripture is what now is called the Old Testament.

 

stop quoting partials. The partial has a reason, and that reason follows in the same sentence.

1 Cor 4:6 I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written, so that none of you will be inflated with pride in favor of one person over against another.

This is an emotionally charged peroration to the discussion about divisions. It contains several exhortations and statements of Paul's purpose in writing (cf 1 Cor 4:6, 14-17, 21) that counterbalance the initial exhortation at 1 Cor 1:10.

That you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written: the words "to go" are not in the Greek, but have here been added as the minimum necessary to elicit sense from this difficult passage. It probably means that the Corinthians should avoid the false wisdom of vain speculation, contenting themselves with Paul's proclamation of the cross, which is the fulfillment of God's promises in the Old Testament (what is written). Inflated with pride: literally, "puffed up," i.e., arrogant, filled with a sense of self-importance. The term is particularly Pauline, found in the New Testament only in 1 Cor 4:6, 18-19; 5:2; 8:1; 13:4; Col 2:18 (cf the related noun at 2 Cor 12:20). It sometimes occurs in conjunction with the theme of "boasting," as in 1 Cor 4:6-7 here.

The below verse denies that presumption.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word(3056), or our epistle.

G3056
λόγος
logos
log'-os
From G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

The have the distinction of what is spoken orally (word ) and what was written (epistle).

 

Scripture interprets itself. Despite the source that you have quoted (and it is only one), tradition can be written. That is obvious. Islam has its Hadith. The Jews have their Talmud. And even the Catholics have a body of Tradition, much of it written. You did not quote a complete definition of "tradition," not even in the Greek. I also have studied this verse out quite extensively.

Take the Catholic definition coming from their own Catholic Encyclopedia: Tradition is body of knowledge oral or writted passed down throughout the centuries from generation to generation.
2Thes. 2:15 contradicts this Catholic definition of "tradition" which the Catholics like to force into that verse. What kind of tradition could Paul have been teaching Timothy that could have developed in the church between 30 A.D. (the year of Pentecost of when the church started), and the time of the writing of that epistle (no later than 65 A.D.) How much tradition developed in 15 years. I laugh at the very idea. Catholics on the one hand say that tradition develops over hundreds of years, and on the other hand say that Paul was teaching tradition that developed within 15 years. How ludicrous.
There was no time for tradition to develop, and that is not what the word means. The word means "truth." Paul taught them the truth that he delivered unto them. He had taught them the truth of the Word of God. He had taught them that truth both orally and from the Book itself. Every preacher does that. If I preach without notes does that mean I am teaching tradition? Of course not! I preach the Word of God, which Paul also taught. He had much of it memorized, and much of it was revealed to him divinely. This is one man, though very studious, did not have to make notes on every sermon. He taught orally. Thus the word "traditon" is used. It is the truth of the Word that was handed down by Paul, from the time that he was saved--sometime after Pentecost, up until that time, a time that was considerably less than 15 years. No tradition (as we define the word today) had developed during that space of time.
DHK

 

The best way to answer such a claim is by pointing out that any doctrine, such as how salvation is achieved or what the definition of faith is, are not derived from one’s personal guesswork on Scripture verses but rather come from the gospel as preached by Jesus and the apostles. Scripture does not interpret itself nor does it force its explanation on anyone which is why Jesus orally taught his gospel and commanded the apostles to do the same, “Preach the gospel to all men…”, St. Paul, who preached the gospel also, said “faith comes by hearing”.

They learned this gospel from Jesus himself. And since no book of the bible claims to summarize the gospel as preached by Jesus, Sts Paul, Peter & the other apostles, it is futile to try to figure out what this gospel is that St. Paul et al preached by reading scripture alone. Jesus did not tell the apostles to “go out and write”, but to preach, orally.

Long before the canon of scripture was finally settled in the 390's, the early bible christians, who were all Catholic, except for the heretics, believed that faith was defined as believing everything that Jesus said, because that is what the apostles, including St. Paul, taught in the gospel they preached.

Nor is the bible it clear on any single point, which is why the Church Jesus founded has one set of beliefs (the gospel) while the non-catholic christians' beliefs are all over the map, so to speak, with over 20,000 different denominations (according to the Protestant “World Christian Encyclopedia” as well as the U.N.). Protestants have no consensus on any doctrinal point because they their sole source of belief is the bible, which is a misuse of it.

Continued....

 

The only way to know what the gospel is as preached by St Paul et al is to look at Catholic Apostolic Tradition, i.e., what the apostles believed and taught and practiced. One can find this in the Roman Catechism, the Baltimore Cathechism and the new Catechism. This gospel is not a “religion of the book” but is a religion of the "Word of God, not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living" and is transmitted by the Magisterium from generation to generation.

One can also look at the early christians who were taught by the apostles to get a glimpse as to what the content of the gospel is. The doctrine these writers reflect in their writings correspond to the doctrine of only one Church today - the Catholic Church.

All of the bible christians, and those of the second, third and fourth centuries, believed in purgatory, praying to the saints in heaven, honoring Mary, celebrating Mass, the need for baptism, the ordained priesthood, honoring and obeying St Peter's successor, mortal sin, etc.

Then in 390 or so the bible, which is a narrative of salvation history, i.e., how God has intervened in history to save mankind, was defined. The bible is a narrative of salvation history, it is NOT a catechism. That's why the Church periodically publishes catechisms, so people will know what the basic content of the gospel as preached by the apostles (of course doctrine has developed so not everything in the new catechism was preached by St. Paul, e.g. invitro fertilization, but it follows from the basics).

Even M. Luther believed the above paragraph as he wrote two catechisms - the small and the large. So if one wants to know what the gospel is read the above three catechisms. To try to figure it out from scriptural exegesis is an exercise in futility as Jesus did not say to read the bible to get the gospel but to listen to his Church, the pillar and foundation of truth.

Reading the bible can be enriching and uplifting, but one must know how the Church wants us to use it in order for it to be profitable. One can read & learn from the bible salvation history, the life of the early Church, the life of Jesus, how he acted, how he related to people and how he challenged them. But to use it to determine what the gospel is and what doctrine is violating a basic teaching of Jesus and the gospel which is that one should listen to the Church, not his/her own personal guesswork on bible verses.