Very interesting post, and certainly a lot here I didn't receive in formation - we tended to go straight into theological conclusions. Reading Aquinas' commentary on various passages of scriptures, such as the Gospel of Matthew or John, I find he does a good job of weaving other passages of scripture together it eliminate erroneous interpretations. He also utilizes reason to narrow interpretations, while nonetheless also remaining open to possible meanings. In one instance, he was speaking of Jesus being supposedly scandalized by Peter's rebuke. Aquinas says that it is impossible for Christ to be scandalized since He is God. Rather, this type of scandal that Jesus spoke of was about Him insofar as it was about His Body, the Church.
I think of scriptural interpretation as something like dialogue. It begins, as you say, with our own interpretation or intuition, then we submit that, or test it, and polish it off. We submit it to outside sources of truth in conjunction with the Scriptures - such as the Magisterium, Context, Form, Reason, Prayer, etc.. I find that its when we leave any of these sources of truth out of the equation, that is when we tend to err. Consider those who espouse dual covenantal theology or perhaps even something akin to apokastasis. I find that these often result from a very isolated field, drawing absolute conclusions without all the nuancing that would render us an accurate conclusion.
Very interesting post, and certainly a lot here I didn't receive in formation - we tended to go straight into theological conclusions. Reading Aquinas' commentary on various passages of scriptures, such as the Gospel of Matthew or John, I find he does a good job of weaving other passages of scripture together it eliminate erroneous interpretations. He also utilizes reason to narrow interpretations, while nonetheless also remaining open to possible meanings. In one instance, he was speaking of Jesus being supposedly scandalized by Peter's rebuke. Aquinas says that it is impossible for Christ to be scandalized since He is God. Rather, this type of scandal that Jesus spoke of was about Him insofar as it was about His Body, the Church.
I think of scriptural interpretation as something like dialogue. It begins, as you say, with our own interpretation or intuition, then we submit that, or test it, and polish it off. We submit it to outside sources of truth in conjunction with the Scriptures - such as the Magisterium, Context, Form, Reason, Prayer, etc.. I find that its when we leave any of these sources of truth out of the equation, that is when we tend to err. Consider those who espouse dual covenantal theology or perhaps even something akin to apokastasis. I find that these often result from a very isolated field, drawing absolute conclusions without all the nuancing that would render us an accurate conclusion.