Sola Scriptura - who has the correct interpretation of the WORD?

[Albion]

How exactly does tradition play into the understanding of Scripture under Sola Scriptura?

Thank you,
Nancy

"Under" Sola Scriptura, we take account of the way the early church understood the scriptures. "Under" Tradition, new doctrines not taught in the Bible are considered to be a second and subsequent revelation from God, and this is embodied in history--IF there is consistency everywhere and at all times--and in the findings of the Ecumenical Councils, the Magesterium, the ex Cathedra Papal decrees, and so on.

 

[Albion]

Maybe I should not have used the word tradition in my post 177, I do not mean that you view tradition as I view Holy Tradition. I guess by tradition I also include history and the ECFs.

Nancy

!!! Thank you very much for recognizing that there is a difference there. This is often not done.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

"Under" Sola Scriptura, we take account of the way the early church understood the scriptures. "Under" Tradition, new doctrines not taught in the Bible are considered to be a second and subsequent revelation from God, and this is embodied in history--IF there is consistency everywhere and at all times--and in the findings of the Ecumenical Councils, the Magesterium, the ex Cathedra Papal decrees, and so on.

Then would you say this post of mine is fairly representative of the difference between SOLO and SOLA?

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus
Not really sure myself. Solo would probably be my view as I do not go outside of the Bible to interpret it. Sola perhaps means reconciling the ECfs views of the Scriptures to what the Scriptures actually say. Another words, do Traditions line up with "what sayeth the Scriptures". Don't really know myself.

 

[Albion]

I think I understand, Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the primary source given by God. Understanding of the Holy Scriptures however is where differences occur.

Nancy

It's the ultimate source, we'd say, and the only one that has a certainty of being from God. It is all that is necessary for us to achieve God's purpose in giving us knowledge of himself in the first place. But yes, understanding the message is where the differences occur. Again, however, don't fall into the trap of thinking that this doesn't affect the churches that stand on Holy Tradition, that somehow calling something Holy Tradition solves all issues of understanding or interpretation.

 

[CathNancy]

Would you say that Sola Scriptura is also sacramental? I believe the Lutheran and Anglican Churchs both have some sacraments.

God Bless,
Nancy

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Would you say that Sola Scriptura is also sacramental? I believe the Lutheran and Anglican Churchs both have some sacraments.

God Bless,
Nancy

I won't get into "sacraments" here myself as there is a board dedicated to that.

http://christianforums.com/f718-sacramental-ordinance-theology.html
Sacramental/Ordinance Theology

 

[Albion]

Then would you say this post of mine is fairly representative of the difference between SOLO and SOLA?

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus
Not really sure myself. Solo would probably be my view as I do not go outside of the Bible to interpret it. Sola perhaps means reconciling the ECfs views of the Scriptures to what the Scriptures actually say. Another words, do Traditions line up with "what sayeth the Scriptures". Don't really know myself.

I just don't want to tread on that, LLOJ. I believe in Sola Scriptura, just as most of the churches of the Reformation which constitute the majority of Protestants do. Solo is something that took a different approach at a later time, and I don't represent those churches, nor am I a good one to talk about some of these newer theologies. Besides, the question of the thread dealt with Sola Scriptura, not the whole range of possible theological approaches to truth that have been promoted by someone somewhere.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I just don't want to tread on that, LLOJ. I believe in Sola Scriptura, just as most of the churches of the Reformation which constitute the majority of Protestants do. Solo is something that took a different approach at a later time, and I don't represent those churches, nor am I a good one to talk about some of these newer theologies. Besides, the question of the thread dealt with Sola Scriptura, not the whole range of possible theological approaches to truth that have been promoted by someone somewhere.

Ok sorry for "stirring the pot" and causing more confusion.
I will bow out now. Peace

 

[CathNancy]

Would you say that Sola Scriptura is also sacramental? I believe the Lutheran and Anglican Churchs both have some sacraments.

God Bless,
Nancy

I do not want to derail the thread, I was just curious.

God Bless,
Nancy

 

[Albion]

Would you say that Sola Scriptura is also sacramental?

Absolutely. No doubt about it.

I believe the Lutheran and Anglican Churchs both have some sacraments.

Yes, and not them only. The Methodists, Presbyterians, and many others would have to be added in.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I see Lutherans/Anglicans on this thread and wonder why the Orthodox happened jumped in yet.

 

[CathNancy]

For those who hold to Sola Scriptura, what is the purpose of the sacraments? I hope that this is still within the scope of the original OP, if not I will start a new thread.

God Bless,
Nancy

 

[Albion]

I see Lutherans/Anglicans on this thread and wonder why the Orthodox happened jumped in yet.

Probably because the thread represents Roman Catholics inquiring of Protestants about their POVs.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Probably because the thread represents Roman Catholics inquiring of Protestants about their POVs.

Well, I consider the Orthodox to be "Protest-ants" too.

 

[Albion]

For those who hold to Sola Scriptura, what is the purpose of the sacraments? I hope that this is still within the scope of the original OP, if not I will start a new thread.

God Bless,
Nancy

For most of us, it's about the same as with your church. It's not as though the Bible Alone doesn't clearly teach us to observe Baptism and the Lord's Supper, you know, and provides answers as to why we ought to do so.

 

[CathNancy]

Thank you, this has been very informative.

However, getting back to the OP, how do you know which interpretation of the Bible is correct? If I understand you correctly, you rely on the understanding of Scripture by the early Church, the ECFs and history. Is this correct? Is this what you would consider your "authority" or do have no "authority" but God and how you interpret His word? Please do not misunderstand me, I also believe God to be the ultimate authority, but I also have the Church as my authority on earth to rely on to understand His word.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this.

Nancy

 

[Albion]

Thank you, this has been very informative.

However, getting back to the OP, how do you know which interpretation of the Bible is correct? If I understand you correctly, you rely on the understanding of Scripture by the early Church, the ECFs and history. Is this correct? Is this what you would consider your "authority" or do have no "authority" but God and how you interpret His word?

Thanks to you too for a nice discussion. We do rely upon all that and reason, too, in evaluating Scripture's meaning. But its' Scripture that we are trying to understand. And Scripture has the final say for us, unlike the churches (RCC and EO mainly) which see Scripture as just part of the package of revelation that they appeal to.

We merely have said since Luther's time that to do the latter thing (Tradition) is to adulterate the pure Word of God with a lot of human speculation that then gets labelled as the hand of God directing the utterances of certain men and nations.

 

[CathNancy]

As an answer to the OP, since your faith icon is Anglican, I am assuming that you hold the Anglican understanding of the Scriptures to be the correct one. Am I right in assuming this?

Nancy

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

As an answer to the OP, since your faith icon is Anglican, I am assuming that you hold the Anglican understanding of the Scriptures to be the correct one. Am I right in assuming this?

Nancy

I found out there are some that are "Anglo Papist" and was wondering if they are a seperate sect from Anglicans. Thoughts?

http://christianforums.com/t7183368-anglo-papist.html&page=4

Secundulus
Anglo-Papist
48

 

[Albion]

As an answer to the OP, since your faith icon is Anglican, I am assuming that you hold the Anglican understanding of the Scriptures to be the correct one. Am I right in assuming this?

Nancy

I'm an Anglican and a fairly typical one, I think. We like to say that we do not have any doctrines of our own, none that are peculiar to us. That many sound like a slogan, but I think it is true to a very large extent. As you may know, we also tend to accept a wider range of thought on non-essentials that most churches do.