Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ,

I cannot send you a PM because your inbox has exceeded its limit. I can't post in the Visitor Message in your profile page because you don't have a Visitor Message tab. Therefore, I will post my reply to your Visitor message here because I see no other alternative.<snip>

Ahhh...... I may have turned it off to those not on my contact/friends list because I was invaded by a bunch of trolls earlier.
Thanks for reminding me to turn it back on

 

[ivebeenshown]

That statement is based upon your own incorrect presumptive opinion, which is your own "private interpretation".

The bible does nothing on its own. It requires human interpretation to be of any effect.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The bible does nothing on its own. It requires human interpretation to be of any effect.

I don't think anyone denies that.
However, this thread is not about interpreting anything, it's about accountability - and thus norming (evaluating correctness) and the most sound rule for that among us Christians for the disputed doctrines among us.

The RCC designates itself as the sole, individual, authoritative, unaccountable interpreter. See what it itself says about it itself in this regard in the Catechism of itself # 85.


Back to the subject before us...





.

 

[StThomasMore]

I don't think anyone denies that.
However, this thread is not about interpreting anything, it's about accountability - and thus norming (evaluating correctness) and the most sound rule for that among us Christians for the disputed doctrines among us.

The RCC designates itself as the sole, individual, authoritative, unaccountable interpreter. See what it itself says about it itself in this regard in the Catechism of itself # 85.


Back to the subject before us...





.

infallible book requires infallible interpreter.

 

[sheina]

The bible does nothing on its own. It requires human interpretation to be of any effect.

That is absolutely false! The entire Bible is given by inspriation of God (which means it is God-breathed). Greek word translated "inspiration" in 2 Timothy 3:16 means to "divinely breath in." This describes to us the picture of God breathing into the Scriptures so that they are His very writings. 2 Peter 1:21 says that the Bible authors wrote as they were "moved by the Holy Ghost."

The Bible is a spiritual book...interpreted by the Holy Spirit of God. The born again believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and when a born again believer is walking in the Spirit, the Spirit (not the natural man) gives the interpretation through that born again believer.

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

1 Corinthians 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

1 Corinthians 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

infallible book requires infallible interpreter.

Can ya name a few of those for us?

 

[StThomasMore]

1. the issue here is Sola Scriptura - the practice of using Scripture as the rule in the evaluation of the various disputed doctrines among us. Sola Scriptura is not a hermeneutical principle. It has nothing to do with interpretation, it has to do with norming (the process of evaluating correctness, truthfulness, validity).

2. I agree that it's absurd, egotistical and dangerous for self to designate self as the sole, authoritative, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture. Read The Catholic Catechism #85 (with 87) to see what The Catholic Church does in this regard. Then read every other Catechism on the planet and see if any other does that. It will reveal something important to you - as you regard that as so wrong.


Back to the subject of Sola Scriptura....





.

yea but the 'norming' is all dependent on what the person views as norming when he reads the scripture and how he interprets what he thinks it says.

Secondly this view is non-realistic with regarding biblical and scriptural history. The scriptures in the OT were not fully compiled and put together until Ezra and Nehemiah. Before Ezra, and even more so, before the babylonian exile, the 'norming' of the Hebrews was the oral tradition,teachings in the temples the prophets, levites, and priests that were teaching them. Some was written down, some wasn't. Many of it was scattered around between Judah and Israel. None of the hebrews had a bible to go by at home, to compare the teachings of their temple with the scriptures. Hence sola scriptura is an unrealistic, and more importantly, a non-existent thing for most of biblical history. In fact it was only after gutenberg that Christians could do this , as you say, "normative" proof-text comparing with doctrines.

This shows, it was a man made tradition created later, mostly around after the time of Wycliff. A very unrealistic, un-historical, non-apostolic or Hebraic, and in the long run a unproductive one because it makes man his own Pope and priest. And with the wild imaginations of humanity these days what the people read into the bible is quite different from what another person reads of the same text. Hence there is no normative factor. Rather the true normative factor lies in the Church and the bishops, who are able to reconcile the different interpretations and differences. If issues could not be settled then a council could be brought up, of which the minds of Christendom are brought together, under the Holy Spirit, to provide an exegesis. Just as they did with the canon of the bible itself and the issue of Christ's divinity, nature, and personhood. Since there were so many heresies and groups out there who varied greatly on Christ's nature, humanity and divinity. It was the Church itself who provided the only normative factor with the promulgation of the definition of Christ's hypostatic union. Over half of the Christians were Arians at the time, and there were scriptures around. In fact Aruis used the scriptures to argue against Christ being begotten and his divinity. But it was only though the Church's defining of Christ's hypostatic union that provided the normative factor regarding the Trinity and ended the mass confusion of the Arian heresy.

Can ya name a few of those for us?

The Holy See, the ecumenical councils, and the deposit and analogy of the faith

the sensus fidelium basically. The faithful at large within the framework of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church

Then you have your authoritative sources, that aren't infallible, but theological conclusions (conclusiones theologicae) and considered as proximate to the faith(sententia fidei proxima) like the ancient fathers, saints, doctors, and other patristics.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Well said, sheina.

Hebrews 4:12: "For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

 

[sunlover1]

The bible does nothing on its own. It requires human interpretation to be of any effect.

You must be able to read and comprehend..

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by StThomasMore infallible book requires infallible interpreter.

Can ya name a few of those for us?

<snip?
The Holy See, the ecumenical councils, and the deposit and analogy of the faith

the sensus fidelium basically. The faithful at large within the framework of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church

Then you have your authoritative sources, that aren't infallible, but theological conclusions (conclusiones theologicae) and considered as proximate to the faith(sententia fidei proxima) like the ancient fathers, saints, doctors, and other patristics.

Thanks for clarifying that

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You must be able to read and comprehend..

That is what I had the most trouble with in high school

http://www.christianforums.com/t7356783-2/#post51276720
The One Reading.....

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Strong's Number G3539 matches the Greek &#957;&#959;&#8051;&#969; (noe&#333;), which occurs 19 times in 14 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV

Matthew 24:15 "Whenever then ye may be seeing the abomination of the desolation, the being declared thru Daniel the Prophet having-stood in a place, holy (the one-reading let him be minding/understanding/noeitw <3539> (5720)"
[Mark 13:14]


Revelation 1:3 Happy the one reading/anaginwskwn <314> (5723) and the ones hearing the words of the Prophecy and keepings the in it having been written, for the time nigh.

 

[Montalban]

I reject all man-made traditions also....the ones you speak of are man-made traditions, not found in Scriptures. Studious One is correct.

No. His reasoning is flawed. He rejects ALL traditions based on some traditions he rejects.

There is no problem with Sola Scriptura, the problem lies with the one who rejects it.

Prove it from Scripture

 

[Hentenza]

What this really means is that your private interpretation of the scriptures is the sole and final authority for your faith.

Just as your denomination's private interpretation would be for yours?

 

[Montalban]

Okay... have we accomplished anything here yet? If I am not to believe Scripture? What should I believe, shall I just toss scripture aside?

It seems to be a Protestant mind-set to offer this straw-man, because it's been done by so many

rejecting sola scriptura is not a rejection of scripture

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Which man-made traditions make sense? We are not speaking of my own traditions, but the man-made traditions which the EOs and RCs claim hold the same authority (and sometimes more authority) as the inspired Scriptures.

We are talking about Sola Scriptura, which is NOT a man-made tradition, not my traditions. The Scriptures are my sole and final authority for faith and Christian living. If you have a problem with that, take the matter up with God.

Give me one conclusive bible verse or quote from the ECF's which say that scripture is our sole and final authority for faith. Otherwise, I will assume it is just another tradition of man, and a relatively recent one at that.

 

[Montalban]

Just as your denomination's private interpretation would be for yours?

That's your best argument; that all are equally one's private interpretation. Though I don't believe you think that of your own beliefs.

However what we have to guarantee ours is that Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against us.

You have to pretend that c.300 the church became apostate, and was regathered c.1515 based on that you do believe it

My church gave us the bible

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I don't think anyone denies that.
However, this thread is not about interpreting anything, it's about accountability - and thus norming (evaluating correctness) and the most sound rule for that among us Christians for the disputed doctrines among us.

The RCC designates itself as the sole, individual, authoritative, unaccountable interpreter. See what it itself says about it itself in this regard in the Catechism of itself # 85.


Back to the subject before us...

Yes it is. It's about all of this, and more. The right of personal interpretation is part of sola scripture. Don't try to limit the scope of the thread just because you'd rather not discuss certain aspects.

 

[Hentenza]

That's your best argument; that all are equally one's private interpretation. Though I don't believe you think that of your own beliefs.

However what we have to guarantee ours is that Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against us.

You have to pretend that c.300 the church became apostate, and was regathered c.1515 based on that you do believe it

My church gave us the bible

Nah. Your denomination has no authority except for itself. Is called solo ecclessia. I don't have to pretend anything since I am not the one making the wild, unsupported claims that my church wrote the bible.

 

[sheina]

The Holy See, the ecumenical councils, and the deposit and analogy of the faith

the sensus fidelium basically. The faithful at large within the framework of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church

The Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church is NOT infallible and neither were the ecumenical councils.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The right of personal interpretation is part of sola scripture.

Nope. It's the claim of the RCC ALONE for the RCC alone.

If you have a problem with self designating self as the sole authoritative and unaccountable interpreter, take that up with the only one that does that: the RCC (the Catechism of itself, # 85 for example). Hunt all eternity, you'll find NO other Catechism of NO other denomination that makes the same insistence for self alone.





.