Knowing What You're Looking for in the Bible

......If anyone is qualified to answer that question it is surely Jesus Christ, the Living Word himself. And, in fact, he does. To the religious leaders who highly revered but failed to truly understand this book, Jesus declared, “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life” (John 5:40). I am reminded of the type of preaching I often heard growing up in which the answer for nearly everything was: read the Bible more. The last thing I wanted to read was the Bible, since it had become a talisman. It is ironic that as much as these brothers and sisters recoil at any suggestion of an ex opere operato (literally, “by doing it, it is done”) view of the Sacraments, there seems to be a similar view of devotions and Bible reading—the “quiet time.” Just do it, and everything will be better.

Too often in conservative hermeneutics, there is a biblicism which is unbiblical: the naïve (not to mention tautological) assumption that we’re simply looking for what is there. Each time we go to the text, we are starting from scratch, as if we had no blinders, no presuppositions. This is not only impossible, it blinds us to our presuppositions so that we cannot critique them. To say that all of Scripture is about Christ and that, therefore, whatever does not proclaim Christ is not sufficiently biblical, is not to impose expectations on the text. Rather, it is to come to have certain expectations of the text because it is the text itself which tells us to expect it! One conservative evangelical pastor told me, “I just preach the Word. If I’m in Galatians, I sound like an antinomian; if I’m in the Sermon on the Mount, I sound like a legalist.” The assumption here, of course, is that one is just sticking close to the text, preferring exegesis (reading out the meaning) rather than eisegesis (reading the meaning into the text). But in reality, one may be simply engaging in the higher critics’ tendency to view the Bible as a patchwork quilt of disparate pieces rather than as a single bolt of fabric. It is ironic when Brevard Childs, at Yale Divinity School, argues for reading the Bible as a single book while my conservative evangelical friend insists on reading it as a collection of fragments.

"The assumption here, of course, is that one is just sticking close to the text, preferring exegesis (reading out the meaning) rather than eisegesis (reading the meaning into the text). But in reality, one may be simply engaging in the higher critics’ tendency to view the Bible as a patchwork quilt of disparate pieces rather than as a single bolt of fabric. It is ironic when Brevard Childs, at Yale Divinity School, argues for reading the Bible as a single book while my conservative evangelical friend insists on reading it as a collection of fragments."

Was this taken from the Catholic and Enjoying it web of Mark Shea? Just wondering.

Deuteronomy 4:19..."And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven."

Malachi 1:11..."For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."

Though I guess God changed His mind.

PAR35:"Horton and Modern Reformation are about as far from Rome as you can get. They were probably the loudest voices opposing the old "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" movement."

Horton and Sproul are purist and may think that Catholics have religious cooties, but the ideas presented in the article are Catholic as well. In reading the bible I have gotten different things at different times. Reading it all the way through gave me a gorgeous like to the Word. One gets an understanding that the parts do not have in themselves. Then when reviewing the bible with my children and wife, I get even more understanding. Talking to friends about what they get out of the bible on a topic such as miracles always ends up pointing me to more verses that I had not considered before. My brother, who is a Benedictine Monk has recommended reading the bible everyday since the 70s. Our Franciscan Priest always tells us to read the bible and bring it to life.

There is a barrier to Rome, but the barrier is not a good in itself. We may feel good thinking we are not like the Catholics or alternately that we are not like the Baptists but that only goes as far as our feelings will take us. Helping each other on the way is what Christ wanted us to do. Luke 12:58 "If you are to go with your opponent before a magistrate, make an effort to settle the matter on the way; otherwise your opponent will turn you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the constable, and the constable throw you into prison."

Horton and Sproul are purist and may think that Catholics have religious cooties, but the ideas presented in the article are Catholic as well.

The issue is Roman Catholic dogma, not individual Roman Catholics. And the issue is not with what is plainly taught in the Bible, such as the divinity of Christ, the nature of teh Godhead, or the virgin birth. The issue is with those dogmas that rely on the 800 pound gorilla of the RC church for their support; like Mary's perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, or bodily assumption.

Reading and studying the Bible, in its historical context, carefully comparing Scripture with Scripture is not a uniquely "Catholic idea". Relying on some alleged infallible teaching of the church is where the distinction lies, and the errors creep in.

like Mary's perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, or bodily assumption

The only dogma in that list that had been decreed by the church before the Protestant break is perpetual virginity. Luther believed in it.

you also write: Relying on some alleged infallible teaching of the church is where the distinction lies, and the errors creep in.

Errors would creep in if the Church did not understand these charisms and felt they could fly in the face of the truth, church councils, all the bishops, history and the bible. I am sure there are people who will insist that the Church has done this out of blindness and based only upon tradition. But, she hasn't. If the Church flew in the face of truth, councils, all the bishops, history and the bible then error would creep in. You know and I know that these charisms of infallibility are from the Holy Spirit and are scripturally based.

And do not think that I will say that Protestant ideas are all bad and Catholic ideas are all good. I say that Catholics learn from Protestants and Protestants learn from Catholics. We have and we will continue to, since life and history does not happen in a vacuum. There is truth in both and since both are human, neither are perfect.

Sources of Infallibility: Biblical in-errancy, infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium, infallibility in the consensus of the Fathers of the Church, infallibility of ecumenical councils, and Papal infallibility.

Some scriptural basis:
I Tim 3:15 "the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth"

Matt 28:18-20 "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

Mark 16:15-16 "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be condemned."

John 14:16-17,26 "I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever. The spirit of truth . . . he shall abide with you, and shall be in you" & "But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you"

Matt 16:18-19 "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.