Sensus Plenior

My issue with this is the same as my issue with the Bible code, albeit not on the same level: manuscript differences. While many manuscript differences are mainly typographical errors, some are differences in words, and this would seem to cause an issue with any theory that relies on certain key words for a hidden allegory.

Also, the reference to garments as always referring to works seems partially incorrect, since early fathers also drew a parallel to clothes and baptism, as in “putting on” the righteousness of Christ…

To carry thing back onto this thread, true, righteousness can refer to works, but nobody in the history of scholarship that I am aware of has ever claimed that we put on Christ’s specific works as a robe. To the contrary, although works and righteousness are through grace, they are also very much shown to be unique/intrinsic to the invididual (free will playing a part). So to put on Christ’s righteousness in your view would be tantamount to saying that we are clothing ourselves in Jesus’ works, which are only unique to Jesus.

This is part of my issue with your proposed method of hermeneutics, is that they seem to very much revolve around a secondary constant possible meaning. I’m not knocking your idea, I have your page bookmarked and will be studying it to attempt to see exactly wear you are coming from, but I am proceeding with caution.

Can you show what fathers referenced them in this way?

Although I don’t always agree with the usage of “Sensus Plenior” On these forums (you guys know who you are! ;)), I do feel that our white garments are referenced to good works done in Christ. Although, come to think of it, the ones used in baptisms are symbolic of the wiping away of our sins in Baptism. We are giving a clean slate, so to speak. So maybe the fathers you are thinking of are speaking of baptism. When dealing with the saints, however, it seems to always refer to their good works.

You will have to loosen up your usage of words a bit to play the riddle game. When we refer to the cross, we do not speak solely about a chunk of wood, although we may. We may speak of the whole redemptive process of the cross even beginning with his birth.

So it is with righteousness. Righteousness is not a ‘glow in the dark’ kind of property like we think of Holiness. Holiness is a property of dedication , consecration, set aside for a purpose. But righteousness is associated with works. So to say ‘put on the garment of Christ’ is to say ‘put on the works (accomplished by Christ)’. His works are imputed to us so that it as though we never failed to perform at 100%.

The point is not to haggle over the riddle but to see Christ is the scriptures and come away with awe.

Also it is more appropriate to separate my interpretation of the sensus plenior from my observation of it.

For instance: I observe that the arks and Mary share properties in the sensus plenior. My interpretation will differ from NotWorthy’s because I see Mary as a type of Christ rather than as the ante-type of the arks. My interpretation does not affect the observation of the correlations at all.

So whether you interpret the fig leaf aprons as Adam’s works attempting to cover his sin, or as Adam’s self-righteousness attempting to cover his sin has little difference.

When we talk about the Trinity, we will see it referenced from different aspects. Father, Son and Holy Ghost, who reveal themselves to man through the Word, Works, and Life and we respond by Hearing, Seeing and Walking, or don’t respond because we are Deaf, Blind and Lame. They are the same Trinity but referenced from the aspect of Identity, Method of Revelation, Method of Responding to revelation, or not.

This is part of my issue with your proposed method of hermeneutics, is that they seem to very much revolve around a secondary constant possible meaning. I’m not knocking your idea, I have your page bookmarked and will be studying it to attempt to see exactly wear you are coming from, but I am proceeding with caution.

I would hope that you would not only proceed with caution, but that you demand explanations for anything that does not seem right either in its claims for itself or with its consistency with Christian doctrine.

I have not found a single author who has used it since the first century, though I believe I can show evidence it was used by Jesus, Apostles and early fathers.

And so you know. I did not come up with an idea and try to prove it. I started seeing Christ everywhere in the scriptures and then had to explain to myself how and why I see them. At this point I cannot separate the sensus plenior from my experience with Christ.

The only thing I ask is that you not judge it before you understand it. If it teaches another Christ, throw it out immediately and at any time. But since it is the knowledge of Christ from the New Testament that reveals them, this is impossible.

Concerning baptism…

Jordan means ‘descending’. Things that happen before the Jordan represent things that happen before the incarnation (I think. everything is tentative until they are validated by third parties) John went beyond the Jordan, representing that he was the beginning of something after the incarnation.

The same way we speak of the cross as a symbol of the very real work of Christ, referring to the incarnation is not simply the act of becoming flesh, but encompasses all of his work in the flesh.

And So when Jesus was baptized, it was not because he needed to be cleansed to fulfill all righteousness, but because he had to complete the picture of the cross that the Father had begun in the circumstances surrounding John.

Christ would have to die in his incarnation, and his baptism was just part of the prophetic role play taking place with John. So His baptism is a symbol of his willingness to die, and this he had to do to fulfill all righteousness.

Jesus said he only did what he saw the Father doing. He saw the prophetic dinner theater surrounding John and stepped in to complete it.

The reason I am so nitpicky is because issues that seem inconsequential in the beginning can lead to a cascade of resultant deduction ending in error. For instance, your remarks about imputed righteousness (which is not the Catholic position), or Mary being a type of Christ (which I believe is greatly in error, can create much confusion, and seems to be unsupported by Typology). If there are errors that we can determine in your initial typology, how much more so in the hidden Divine riddle? For instance, how can Mary be a type of Jesus if her holiness is not intrinsic but is a direct action on her behalf by her son, who also happens to be the fulfillment of her type? What intrinsic responsibility did she carry in the Fall that Jesus would be fulfilling her as an anti-type in some way? Does it not make more sense to see Mary and Jesus per Gen. 3:15 as the anti-types of the Adamic couple? Also, if one sees Mary as a type of Jesus, it would violate the fact that she also serves as a type of the Church (see both literal and symbolic aspects to the woman clothed in the sun Rev 12:1). The Church cannot serve as a type of Christ if it did not precede Christ, and so Mary cannot properly serve as a type of Christ. She fulfilled neither a covenantal role nor participated as a result of that role in the Fall, nor is she ever displayed as having any role outside of her direct connection with her son, and so cannot properly serve as his type.

I think before we can embark on a joint study of a given passage using your particular manner of hermeneutics, we would need to be clear on certain potential doctrinal differences regarding said passage, lest it potentially affect the hidden sensus plenior. And if it does indeed create doctrinal division, it cannot be Divine. Something for us to consider as we proceed.

If a sensus plenior is to be found, it seems that there are one of two options: vague or specific. If it is too specific, it runs the risk of doctrinal error if it is not worked within a specific theological framework (Catholicism, in my case). If it is too vague, however, we need to be certain we aren’t seeing things where they simply don’t exist. I think there is a difference between patterns due to thematic similarity, and a hidden Divine message. That being said, I am reading through your blog now.

You are basing your judgments without understanding the claims, and you are basing them on my interpretations rather than the observations.

Prophetic recapitulation explains the issue with Mary. But if you cannot distinguish between observation and interpretation, there is not much point in discussing it. As I mentioned at the beginning, if I agreed with Catholic doctrine I would be Catholic.

And one who would rather condemn me for not being Catholic rather than attempt to help me reconcile the differences, as I mentioned is the primary reason for me being here, is worth than useless for discussion purposes.

So thank you, but no thanks. I am quite capable or receiving condemnation from any number of places without inviting it from you.

Furthermore, your review of the website is intellectually dishonest.

Rather than read it sequentially so that an idea that is presented, understood and built upon, you are jump skipping around, and I would not expect anyone to comprehend the claims.

You haven’t even read the rules according to the logs, which are fundamental to understanding the claim.

So you can only pretend to be reviewing the web site.

My responses on this forum are to your posts on this forum, not in regards to your blog, which I am not anywhere close to finished reading.

Your dismissive comment about prophetic recapitulation handling Mary does not actually explain anything. I require far more than that, and intellectual honesty requires it as well. I’m sure you can appreciate that.

As for your somewhat touchy attitude, it speaks volumes if you invite constructive criticism then immediately get defensive when it is given. To my knowledge, I don’t believe I have “condemned” anyone, in fact I never even gave a declarative statement that your views were officially in error, having been very careful in my chosen wording. Considering my very particular language, I find your unusual response disproportionate to what I actually wrote, and so I can only think that it comes from a knee-jerk emotional reaction rather than careful consideration.

John Meier wrote a series of books called “A marginal Jew,” where he attempted to come up with what we could know about the historical Jesus based on historical criticism rather than dogmatic faith; something that could be “known” about Jesus if you locked a muslim, a protestant, and a Catholic into a room together until they came to a consensus. Although my viewpoint is biased, I can appreciate his desire to create a level playing field, so to speak, and as such I believe I have every right to do the same with you prior to attempting a new method of hermeneutic. I suggest you chill out. If you want to discuss your ideas, get used to peer review.

Sorry, I didn’t even see your post. Here are some passages dealing directly with the linking of baptism and robes:

The following is a bit ambiguous, but I believe connects the two:

St. Ambrose concerning repentance
Book II, Ch. XI

  1. Good, then, is penitence, and if there were no place for it, every one would defer the grace of cleansing by baptism to old age. And a sufficient reason is that it is better, to have a robe to mend, than none to put on; but as that which has been repaired once is restored, so that which is frequently mended is destroyed.

This is my favorite, because it links the robe directly with baptism, and shows the good works as coming after the fact:

Fragments of Clement of Alexandria, Macarius Chrysocephalus: Parable of the Prodigal Son, Luke XV. Oration on Luke XV, towards the close.

  1. For He says, “Bring hither the fatted calf, kill it, and let us eat and be merry; for this my son”–a name of nearest relationship, and significative of what is given to the faithful–“was dead and lost,”–an expression of extremest alienation; for what is more alien to the living than the lost and dead? For neither can be possessed any more. But having from the nearest relationship fallen to extremest alienation, again by repentance he returned to near relationship. For it is said, “Put on him the best robe,” which was his the moment he obtained baptism. I mean the glory of baptism, the remission of sins, and the communication of the other blessings, which he obtained immediately he had touched the font.
    “And put a ring on his hand.” Here is the mystery of the Trinity; which is the seal impressed on those who believe.
    “And put shoes on his feet,” for “the preparation of the Gospel of peace,”(6) and the whole course that leads to good actions.

Below is not considered to be legitimate, but it contains an interesting reference:

Clement of Rome, Pseudo-Clementine Literature, Book IV, Ch. XXXV, False Apostles

Meantime He has commanded us to go forth to preach, and to invite you to the supper of the heavenly King, which the Father hath prepared for the marriage of His Son, and that we should give you wedding garments, that is, the grace of baptism;(5) which whosoever obtains, as a spotless robe with which he is to enter to the supper of the King, ought to beware that it be not in any part of it stained with sin, and so he be rejected as unworthy and reprobate.

St. Gregory Nanzianzen Orations, The Oration on Holy Baptism

If they will be with you, well;–but do not wait for them. For it is base to say, “But where is my offering for my baptism, and where is my baptismal robe, in which I shall be made bright, and where is what is wanted for the entertainment of my baptizers, that in these too I may become worthy of notice? For, as you see, all these things are necessary, and on account of this the Grace will be lessened.” Do not thus trifle with great things, or allow yourself to think so basely. The Sacrament is greater than the visible environment. Offer yourself; clothe yourself with Christ, feast me with your conduct; I rejoice to be thus affectionately treated, and God Who gives these great gifts rejoices thus. Nothing is great in the sight of God, but what the poor may give, so that the poor may not here also be outrun, for they cannot contend with the rich. In other matters there is a distinction between poor and rich, but here the more willing is the richer.

Cyril Of Jerusalem and other fathers such as Jerome and Hippolytus allude to it, however the quotes are not as direct, and so I have not included them. I find it significant, however, that the robe is nearly always spoken of in the immediate context of baptism, indeed it seems almost any time they speak of baptism a robe is mentioned.

Pardon me for being so ignorant I can’t see a question here. Would it be possible for you to phrase your concerns in the form of an actual question? Or would I have to be a believer to “know what you mean” but do not say.?

I expect you to disagree with me about interpretation. Sensus plenior speaks of the existence of the patterns which reveal Christ. They should stand on their own without my interpretations.

Your dismissive comment about prophetic recapitulation handling Mary does not actually explain anything. I require far more than that, and intellectual honesty requires it as well. I’m sure you can appreciate that.

It is not a dismissive comment. It is a reference to a topic which is addressed several times in the website and which has been discussed elsewhere in the forum. So it is reference to a more lengthy description of it. At the time you wish to discuss it, it should be another subject.

… in fact I never even gave a declarative statement that your views wre officially in error, having been very careful in my chose wording.

For instance, your remarks about imputed righteousness (which is not the Catholic position), or Mary being a type of Christ (which I believe is greatly in error, can create much confusion, and seems to be unsupported by Typology).

I shared those difference so that you would understand the difference between an observation and the interpretation of an observation, to provide a basis for conversation without getting wrapped up in what we know to be differences, yet it appears to be a very clear declaration of error to me.

As I said previously, doctrinal differences are understandable. Sensus plenior is not about doctrine. It is about, what I believe is a divinely placed picture of Christ behind and intimately woven into the words of scripture itself.

It is not divorced from doctrine because you can only discern what you know of Christ. I don’t know the church and I don’t know Mary. I expect you to find differences in our interpretations. Had you checked out my previous posts on the subject, you would have found suggested support from sensus plenior for Mary’s perpetual virginity, and perhaps the immaculate conception, though I don’t personally believe them because of the difference in discerning the ante-types. But until you even ask how I might have arrived at that, it is a prejudgment on your part.

In the meantime, the pictures of Christ in the scriptures will remain. I am hoping that others will see them for themselves and can correct any errors that I may have made along the way.

The Rules separate sensus plenior from popular typology and free-for-all allegory. That’s why they are right up front in the presentation of the website. You cannot understand anything about it without them.

The tutorial for seeing them is written sequentially.

Cool. I’ll be reading up on it. There’s a lot of info to get through, and I don’t move on until I understand it.

You made a typo perhaps? You MUST believe in Mary’s perpetual Virginity as Dogma my friend. Hate to tell you that myself, after all the bible reading you have done and years of belief.
I can and will defend that dogma with the bible if you wish.

Can you?

Pardon. I started this thread specifically to dialogue with RcJones, and set it up in a hurry without sufficient explanation. That being said, feel free to be snide with somebody else. I’m not interested in your rudeness, even if your opinions are valid.

Interesting site.

Would you be willing to defend all the statements you make on it in apologetics at some point?

I am not interested in debating Catholic doctrine, if that is what you are asking.
That is not the reason that I am in the Catholic forum.

But I am happy to discuss the observations concerning sensus plenior.

Buy and start up your own forum for your personal conversations with others you choose to converse with. However, this is NOT your personal forum. You are free to pay for and run your own whenever you wish, and you are NOT free to limit who will reply to your positions.

Never said that it was, and I have no issue with comments made in charity. However, it is obvious in your many postings on other threads that you sacrifice the charity of Christ for the sake of your own arrogance, which from what I have seen is a bit unfounded. Take my answer however you may, but as I said before, feel free to be snide with someone else.

Okay, for the charity of Christ tell me what you are really trying to do here.
Can you?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit