Scripture as my measure

[sunlover1]

hmm surely you're not going to eat him??

I'd like to think you can never quite know what I'd do.
But that's dreaming isnt it? LOL

Like I said earlier, your definition of SS is but one variation of many. Who says your definition is the correct one?

Amen Bro! For all we know he could be some poser tying to trick us all
into believing he knows how to handle that phrase... (like he's his own pope or something)
By the way. You use that phrase often. What definition are you using?
That way we'll be on the same page!
Thanks.

Some can interpret scripture to be the sole teaching authority, and say that to rely on tradition to prove a point from scripture is straying from the purpose and intention of SS, and "puts tradition above scripture", so to speak.

example, S'il vous plait?

BTW, do you not affirm scripture to be your sole teaching authority?

I don't.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I'd like to think you can never quite know what I'd do.
But that's dreaming isnt it? LOL


Amen Bro! For all we know he could be some poser tying to trick us all
into believing he knows how to handle that phrase... (like he's his own pope or something)
By the way. You use that phrase often. What definition are you using?
That way we'll be on the same page!
Thanks.


example, S'il vous plait?


I don't.

here's a couple different definitions of SS I came across:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7544117-64/#post57080940

Je t'en prie

 

[Ortho_Cat]

A point I would like to address specifically is about the role of individual interpretation in the practice of SS:

. . . in Protestantism -- in the final analysis -- no church or ecclesiastical authority can override the individual's own biblical interpretation if the latter deems the authority to be inconsistent with Scripture (since according to sola Scriptura, Scripture itself is regarded as the ultimate authority over against any church; . . .

This is the right to individual interpretation, which is a very important aspect in the evangelical concept of sola scriptura. In the end, it is me, my scriptures, and the Holy Spirit which determines truth. I am not bound to anyone elses interpretation, because ultimately the Holy Spirit reveals his truth to us individually.

Is this not an essential aspect to SS?

 

[sunlover1]

here's a couple different definitions of SS I came across:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7544117-64/#post57080940

Je t'en prie

Bonjour amie!

My two questions were not for defs of SS.
I asked for "your" definition.. that we might be on the same page..
What do yOU mean when you say "SS"?

and I asked you WHICH traditions you might be referring to.
So sorry for my lack of clarity .. once again...laziness

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Bonjour amie!

My two questions were not for defs of SS.
I asked for "your" definition.. that we might be on the same page..
What do yOU mean when you say "SS"?

and I asked you WHICH traditions you might be referring to.
So sorry for my lack of clarity .. once again...laziness

Oh ok, by SS I mean that scripture has the final authority, and no other authority can bind the conscience of another in regards to interpretation thereof.

In my opinion, CJ avoids the issue of interpretative authority, and tries to get us to discuss SS within his parameters and on his terms.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla; A language is not "dictionary alone".

Of course not, but if you want to understand one, a dictionary is a first step.

(Even the use of a dictionary brings the question "which dictionary" ? Webster's concise or the 12 volume Oxford ?)

Lke Bible versions, dictionary versions do not normaly have different meanings for the same words.

Nor will a dictionary stand in for an actual dialogue - in dialogue, the "dictionary" of the dialogue is created by the participation of those conversing.

My analogy is only meant to correlate the useful self-referencing nature of both. It works for the meaning of dialogues as well as single words. NT authors & characters quote the OT & refer to it in other ways, often enough.

It is again the analytical instead of interaction. (Hence, Scholasticism and legalism.)

Exactly. SS is for analyzing truth.
First discern truth, then interact.

 

[sunlover1]

Oh ok, by SS I mean that scripture has the final authority, and no other authority can bind the conscience of another in regards to interpretation thereof.

Sorry! more questions coming...
I need more. How broad are we talking here when you say "no other authority" and what do you mean by final authority?
Final authority of what?
I simply turn to Scripture to check doctrine..and what Scripture says
goes..

In my opinion, CJ avoids the issue of interpretative authority, and tries to get us to discuss SS within his parameters and on his terms.

TBH, it wasn't "his terms" it was more a "it is what it is"
Did you see any SS practicers disagree with his definitions?
Is this why you started another thread then?
So we can discuss it on your terms?

Okay, you win.


edit to say:
what's a "practicer"?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Sorry! more questions coming...
I need more. How broad are we talking here when you say "no other authority" and what do you mean by final authority?
Final authority of what?
I simply turn to Scripture to check doctrine..and what Scripture says
goes..

TBH, it wasn't "his terms" it was more a "it is what it is"
Did you see any SS practicers disagree with his definitions?
Is this why you started another thread then?
So we can discuss it on your terms?

Okay, you win.


edit to say:
what's a "practicer"?

well, i started another thread because i kind of thought it was a subject worth addressing specifically, and each of the threads in use right now are kind of talking about different issues, so i didnt' want to derail them anymore... will say more later...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Oh ok, by SS I mean that scripture has the final authority, and no other authority can bind the conscience of another in regards to interpretation thereof.

Read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ I am very confident that if you do, not only will the practice be clear to you but your several mischaracterizations and misunderstandings will not continue. Try it.

In my opinion, CJ avoids the issue of interpretative authority, and tries to get us to discuss SS within his parameters and on his terms.

Oh, I'm MORE than willing to discuss hermeneutics! Start a thread on it.


Oh, I'm MORE than willing to discuss the RCC's insistence that SELF is the sole, authoritative, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture (and if that is the position of your denomination, too - to discuss that). Start a thread on that.


Thank you.


Pax



- Josiah




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This is the right to individual interpretation, which is a very important aspect in the evangelical concept of sola scriptura. In the end, it is me, my scriptures, and the Holy Spirit which determines truth. I am not bound to anyone elses interpretation, because ultimately the Holy Spirit reveals his truth to us individually.

Is this not an essential aspect to SS?

Read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/


No, it is an essential aspect of the RCC. Read it's Catechism # 85. Search the rest of your life, you will find no such equal in the Catechism of ANY Protestant denomination. You seem to have Protestantism confused with Catholicism?

No, the idea that the Holy Spirit leads only SELF (inerrantly anyway) and that only SELF follows and learns from the Holy Spirit (infalliblty anyway) is an essential, foundational CATHOLIC insistence (read CCC 87 for example). You perhaps have Protestantism confused with Catholicism?






.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ I am very confident that if you do, not only will the practice be clear to you but your several mischaracterizations and misunderstandings will not continue. Try it.








Oh, I'm MORE than willing to discuss hermeneutics! Start a thread on it.


Oh, I'm MORE than willing to discuss the RCC's insistence that SELF is the sole, authoritative, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture (and if that is the position of your denomination, too - to discuss that). Start a thread on that.


Thank you.


Pax



- Josiah




.

I kindly defer you my other thread re. solo/sola scriptura.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Did you see any SS practicers disagree with his definitions?

I've been studying and discussing this practice since I was 13 years old when I learned its definition. I have yet to encounter a SS practitioner that disagrees what the definition OR how I have described it. What a FEW American "evangelical" types occasionally do is discuss OTHER issues in connection with it; it's rare but happens. We've seen that on rare occasion in a few of the accountability threads here, but these are ideas or practices or thoughts offered IN CONNECTION to the practice, they are not disagreements with it. And I'll admit too that it is a concept that - because of passionate rejection in 2 or 3 denominations (and all cults) - is one often horribly mischaracterized. I have meet many who came to understand what it is and whose first response was: " that's not what my Catholic teachers said!" Well, just as Protestants can be wrong about Catholic practices, Catholics can be wrong about Protestant practices. Correcting misunderstandings is a good thing, IMO. For some, keeping the myths alive is pretty much their goal, objective and destiny?






.

 

[Thekla]

Of course not, but if you want to understand one, a dictionary is a first step.

Not a first step, but one component.

Lke Bible versions, dictionary versions do not normaly have different meanings for the same words.

Actually, good dictionaries tend to give an entire string of meanings for one word; one must sort out which of the many meanings is meant using context, grammar, etc.

My analogy is only meant to correlate the useful self-referencing nature of both. It works for the meaning of dialogues as well as single words. NT authors & characters quote the OT & refer to it in other ways, often enough.

Someone learning a new language is likely ill served by such a reliance (especially in an inflected language, where typically only the base word appears in a dictionary, and the base word is not always discernible as related to its inflected form).

Dictionaries also do not relate the conceptual clusters of discrete but related words.

In dialogue, it is those persons in dialogue who through dialogue provide the actual definition/nuanced meaning of the words (and their conceptual clusters) in use. (It is sometimes said that conversations require a great deal of energy for the participants to actually arrive eventually at a "common language" so that actual communication can then proceed.

It can be added that a great deal of communication in dialogue occurs in non-verbal form. Text also includes a communicative sense similar to the "non-verbal" communication in dialogue; for example - cadence and other tonal inflection, rhetorical devices, subtext, context, over-arching and topographical sorts of conceptual clustering etc. In addition to this there are also nuances typical to culture and historical era.

Exactly. SS is for analyzing truth.
First discern truth, then interact.

Truth is Jesus Christ; He interacted before verbally revealing particular teachings. In fact, a study of the Gospels will demonstrate this - He taught the disciples incrementally over a period of three years. This order is an important aspect of the "method" God uses with humans. Note that if this were not "needed", He could have been crucified and then have Resurrected immediately after His baptism.

 

[razeontherock]

A point I would like to address specifically is about the role of individual interpretation in the practice of SS:

This is the right to individual interpretation, which is a very important aspect in the evangelical concept of sola scriptura. In the end, it is me, my scriptures, and the Holy Spirit which determines truth. I am not bound to anyone elses interpretation, because ultimately the Holy Spirit reveals his truth to us individually.

Is this not an essential aspect to SS?

I think you're asking a sincere question. So as a sincere answer, I say flip those things around before you can even resemble anything Biblical!

In the end it is the Holy Spirit which determines Truth, we are Judged by Christ who embodied the Scriptures while living a mortal life - and we all know it is US who deserve His Cross.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

.




I've been studying and discussing this practice since I was 13 years old when I learned its definition. I have yet to encounter a SS practitioner that disagrees what the definition OR how I have described it. What a FEW American "evangelical" types occasionally do is discuss OTHER issues in connection with it; it's rare but happens. We've seen that on rare occasion in a few of the accountability threads here, but these are ideas or practices or thoughts offered IN CONNECTION to the practice, they are not disagreements with it. And I'll admit too that it is a concept that - because of passionate rejection in 2 or 3 denominations (and all cults) - is one often horribly mischaracterized. I have meet many who came to understand what it is and whose first response was: " that's not what my Catholic teachers said!" Well, just as Protestants can be wrong about Catholic practices, Catholics can be wrong about Protestant practices. Correcting misunderstandings is a good thing, IMO. For some, keeping the myths alive is pretty much their goal, objective and destiny?






.

some include the right to private interpretation in their definitons, and some do not. Anyways, I'm done with definitions. For the sake of argument, let's say you all agree on the same definition (which I still don't think you do). I'm done with discussing definitions for now.



Please see the question I posted for you in my other thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7547378-2/#post57083702

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by sunlover1

Sorry! more questions coming...
I need more. How broad are we talking here when you say "no other authority" and what do you mean by final authority?
Final authority of what?
I simply turn to Scripture to check doctrine..and what Scripture says
goes..

TBH, it wasn't "his terms" it was more a "it is what it is"
Did you see any SS practicers disagree with his definitions?
Is this why you started another thread then?
So we can discuss it on your terms?

Okay, you win.


edit to say:
what's a "practicer"?

well, i started another thread because i kind of thought it was a subject worth addressing specifically, and each of the threads in use right now are kind of talking about different issues, so i didnt' want to derail them anymore... will say more later...

What other thread is that?

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by sunlover1

Did you see any SS practicers disagree with his definitions?
​

.

I've been studying and discussing this practice since I was 13 years old when I learned its definition. I have yet to encounter a SS practitioner that disagrees what the definition OR how I have described it. What a FEW American "evangelical" types occasionally do is discuss OTHER issues in connection with it; it's rare but happens. We've seen that on rare occasion in a few of the accountability threads here, but these are ideas or practices or thoughts offered IN CONNECTION to the practice, they are not disagreements with it. And I'll admit too that it is a concept that - because of passionate rejection in 2 or 3 denominations (and all cults) - is one often horribly mischaracterized.

I have meet many who came to understand what it is and whose first response was: " that's not what my Catholic teachers said!" Well, just as Protestants can be wrong about Catholic practices, Catholics can be wrong about Protestant practices. Correcting misunderstandings is a good thing, IMO. For some, keeping the myths alive is pretty much their goal, objective and destiny?

.

And a great job of that thou hast done with the doctrine of SS





.

 

[nestoj]

This is an old thread...but, I've looked at the first few posts...and just want to say that scripture is not the truth that church upholds, scripture is a truth that church upholds.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaJosiah

Read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/
The Rule of Scripture ("Sola Scriptura" as Luther and Calvin called it)




I am very confident that if you do, not only will the practice be clear to you but your several mischaracterizations and misunderstandings will not continue. Try it.

​

It's closed :o




.

 

[sunlover1]

What other thread is that?

.

2008!
I'm skeered to look at my own posts! LOL

This is an old thread...but, I've looked at the first few posts...and just want to say that scripture is not the truth that church upholds, scripture is a truth that church upholds.

So what would "the truth" then be?