I enjoyed your post. And I see your arguments.
I’m a former military translator, so yes, I do know the problems that come with translations. While I agree that some dynamic equivalent translations can help readers get the thrust of a difficult passage, a formal translation is needed for deeper study, because God’s very words are important, not just his thoughts. Aside from that, there is a plethora of resources to assist one; but I favor the Majority Text principle used by the 1611 translators. The archaic words are actually very few— and the cool thing is; once you learn them, you know them for good.
But I think we are straying away from what is at issue: clear Bible teaching vs. passages that can be difficult. I don’t need a lot of resources outside the Bible to get fundamental doctrine.
Coming back to the Catholic veneration of Mary, there simply isn’t Scripture to support it. If glory needed to be given to her, or dead saints, then God would have made that abundantly clear. It’s only the “deeper” things of God that require digging. Secondly, what does it do to our practical theology once adopted? Who saves and intercedes? At what point? Who can add on to Scripture, when Scripture itself says it has been concluded? Fundamental issues.
Let me say this: I believe the Bible was meant by God to be understood by everyone that desires to understand it. I do however, believe it to be impossible to understand totally without the Holy Spirit. That is fundamental.
For my preference, I hold to 1611. It is modern English in its purest form, and all translations are compared to it, not vice versa. And I do keep a library of history, culture, and have access to the largest theological libraries in the world at my fingertips. But all of that isn’t relevant. While they have enhanced my understanding of Scripture, they have they changed fundamental doctrine after having conducted a proper exegesis of a text.
Disagree with your options. The primary teacher of Scripture is the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:16, 26). He does that when we compare Scripture with Scripture (1 Cor 2:11-13). That is non-negotiable. And it isn’t a principle of hermeneutics that can be “claimed”. I can look at any sermon and see clearly whether or not a preacher is on/off target just by following basic rules, rules that apply to any other book (except for cookbooks- which much bad theology is developed when the Bible is treated as such). Biblical interpretation isn’t rocket science, nor is it mysterious. It’s written for the common man in plain language.
Luther was half right— which is why I don’t follow Luther, or any other man, and I certainly don’t run to him for doctrine; I follow Christ. The manifestations of Luther’s fears are in this world (in truth, they were there all along), but that is why it is necessary to compare Scripture with Scripture, using basic plain interpretation (and prayer) to get to biblical truth. I have yet to meet a fundamental doctrine that cannot be refuted with just Scripture. The status of Mary being one of many. You can add purgatory, indulgences, speaking in tongues, laying on of hands, celibacy, or whatever.
The Bible is spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2:14). But that is not going to happen from a person that has disobeyed God, having refused to put their full trust in Christ alone for their salvation (hence, the Holy Spirit cannot indwell you in order to teach you the Bible).
The problem with adding Mary to the mix, is it obliterates with finished work of Christ. To whom does my trust go to? The Pope? Christ commands that I trust him because he is God (Jn 8:58). When Mary is thrown in for any spiritual need, we are not talking about the same Jesus of the Bible. In fact we cannot be. A searcher developing his doctrine might as well be Mormon, because their Jesus isn’t the Jesus of the Bible either. It’s an issue of authority. I can only go as far as the Bible takes me.
Look at your statement concerning my previous statements on Scripture. Are you sure you want to hold to that position? It’s indefensible. Scripture is the Word of God. Nothing supplants Scripture. I cannot even begin to list the verses that refute that. There are too many. Jesus is the Word of God (Jn 1:1, 14; Rev 9:13-16). Do you really believe man’s teachings supplants Christ? I’d rethink that position.
You are using Paul’s letter as a cookbook. Grab the context.
Did Paul ever suggest the idea that his teachings supplant Scripture? No. What was his point? Read it again. God is greater than that.
Maccabeus never made it into the Canon of Scripture.
2 Tim 1:8- all Catholics run to this verse for the doctrine of praying for the dead. Read it S L O W L Y. It doesn’t say Onesiphorous was dead at the writing of the letter. It merely suggests that he wasn’t at home at the time, and Paul was praying for his entire “house” for......Judgment Day. “That day”, when used in conjunction with the “Lord”, always means the day of judgment. Even in the O.T., a basic hermeneutic. A very, very, very weak argument for a doctrine that has tremendous implications. God is greater than that.
The Transfiguration in Mt 17- yes, it proves that we commune with Christ after we die. The entire NT confirms that. We also commune with other saints while we are here alive. I guess I missed your point, but I’m not at odds with it.
2 Pe 3:14-16 does NOT say that. Read it S L O W L Y. Peter authenticated Paul’s epistles, but admitted that there were some difficult passages that the unlearned AND unstable (not simply “readers” as you put it), wrest: Greek word-”twist”. He was warning of those who were not only deliberately twisting Paul’s letters, but they were doing the same thing with the O.T., to their own destruction.
Plain English- isn’t that what it says?
And I know you didn’t intentionally twist Peter’s words. Sometimes we can read things too fast, not meditate on them, and squeeze them into our own theology.
The absolute best, easiest book I’ve found on hermeneutics is Search For the Truth by Dr Jeff Adams. After all, isn’t truth what we’re after? It’s an interactive workbook, ridiculously easy to understand. The best 16.00 I ever spent.
In Christ,
I have to get ready for work, so I'm just going to touch on a couple of points: I can see a problem with relying on the individual's perception of the Holy Spirit -- whether through evil intent or honest confusion anybody can claim the promptings of the Spirit. There's a whole church full of people who insist that the Holy Spirit is leading them to the "full meaning" of Scripture: homosexual 'bishops' and 'unions', abortion, priestesses, and basically the full liberal political program. It calls itself the Episcopal Church (that's why I shook the dust of that place off my sandals).
Maccabees was in the canon for centuries. And thereby hangs a long tale -- the OT that Jesus himself used included it and other Deuterocanonical books, but by the time the KJV was compiled the Jewish authorities had removed it from their canon. Some speculate that this was done because of anti-Christian feeling, who knows? but the fact remains that Christ used the LXX, not the later, truncated version.
As for the Virgin Mary, it seems to me that the Angelic Salutation and the Magnificat should settle that. "Filled with grace" (from all time and always) - "Who am I, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" - "Behold, all generations shall call me blessed - for He that is mighty hath magnified me" That hardly requires digging, or adding to Scripture.
And it's not necessary to worry about Mary supplanting her Son - remember what she said at Cana - "Do whatever he tells you." And she's the ultimate answer to feminist loons -- she didn't shove herself forward or insist on any privilege, but she was there, witnessing, from the time of Christ's conception to Pentecost. "Per Mariam ad Jesum."
But it seems to me that the most important reason we should not rely on the Bible alone is that it leaves hundreds and hundreds of years of believers completely out in the cold. Right up until the time of the Reformation, the overwhelming majority of people couldn't read. There was no middle class for most of that time (something Americans assume has always existed). Ordinary people couldn't even get a copy of the Bible, since they all had to be copied by hand. People went to Church, received instruction from the Church, and heard Scripture read in Church. Why would Christ have founded His Church and then left His people without comfort or instruction for 1500 years?
Sorry - gotta go - let's continue this conversation.