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

[CathNancy]

Actually I know only a little about the Anglican Church, that is why this has been interesting for me. What do you mean by Anglicans tend to accept a wider range of thought on non-essentials than most churches do? What do you consider non-essentials?

Nancy

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Actually I know only a little about the Anglican Church, that is why this has been interesting for me. What do you mean by Anglicans tend to accept a wider range of thought on non-essentials than most churches do? What do you consider non-essentials?

Nancy

This is one reason why it is difficult discussing a topic such as this one as each Denomination will hold their view of the Scriptures according to how they are taught. Why not go ask the Anglicans directly?

http://christianforums.com/f368-scripturetraditionreason-anglican-old-catholic.html
scripturetraditionreason-anglican-old-catholic.

 

[Albion]

Actually I know only a little about the Anglican Church, that is why this has been interesting for me. What do you mean by Anglicans tend to accept a wider range of thought on non-essentials than most churches do? What do you consider non-essentials?

Nancy

First, we do say that there are non-essentials. Many churches want to have a set position on almost everything.

For examples, We have some parishes with liturgies that are very much like the old Tridentine Mass of the RCC, and others that follow the same format but are as unceremonial as a Methodist service. We don't have a standard answer on eschatology, which is verrrry important to some Christians. We honor the saints but don't give then the veneration that Catholics do. We pray for the departed but not for individuals to be released from Purgatory, etc. We believe in the Real Presence, but are not overly specific about how Christ is made manifest. We believe that we are right in our teachings, but we don't consider other Christians of other churches to be false Christians or not part of Christ's church. We retained Apostolic Succession, but we consider the ministers of non-episcopal denominations to be valid ministers of the Gospel, too.

We like to think that we are the ultimate moderates between the Continental Reformation and Roman Catholicism, avoiding the extremes of both.

 

[Albion]

This is one reason why it is difficult discussing a topic such as this one as each Denomination will hold their view of the Scriptures according to how they are taught. Why not go ask the Anglicans directly?

That's what she did.

 

[CathNancy]

Thank you Albion, you have been very gracious in answering all of my questions.

God Bless,
Nancy

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

We don't have a standard answer on eschatology, which is verrrry important to some Christians.

What exactly is Eschatology? And why shouldn't it be important to understand the Scriptures? There is not one part of the OT/OC Revelation does not touch on but it seems like some denominations, such as the RCs, want to keep it all a "Mystery" to those outside of it. Why?

Reve `9:4 and fall the elders, the twenty four, and the four living ones and they worship to the God, the One sitting on the throne saying: " Amen, Allelouia".
6 and I hear as sound/voice of throng, many, and as sound of waters, many, and as sound of thunders, strong saying:" Allelouia, that reigns Lord the God of us, the Almighty.

Ezra 3:12 And many of the priests, and the Levites/Leviyiy, and the Chiefs/ro'sh of the fathers, the elders/zaqen, who had seen the first House/bayith--in this house being founded before their eyes--are weeping with a loud voice, and many with a Shout, in Joy, lifting up the voice; 13 and the people are not discerning the noise of the shout of joyfrom the noise of the weeping of the people, for the people are shouting--a great shout--and the noise hath been heard unto a distance.

 

[Albion]

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

Anglicanism is a worldwide movement without a Pope figure. It is held together by shared beliefs and a shared history. This and the moderate between extremes characteristic I mentioned before contributes to there being a range of opinion that can be called "within the family" even if those holding one view think those holding another are, in fact, in error. We're not going to start running them out of the churches on that account.

Therefore, there are Evangelical Anglicans who emphasize the Protestant side of our heritage. They usually like less ceremonial services (but ones that most other Protestants think are very Catholic-like, with kneeling, standing, etc.) . And then there are those which emphasize the Catholic side of our heritage. As said, we didn't do away with bishops and priests in Apostolic Succession, retained a sacramental theology, and etc.

For most Anglicans, something in the middle of this is probably what they feel most comfortable with. But there are factions (called "parties" sometimes) within the Anglican churches. The more determined of the Catholic leaning Anglicans have taken to do almost everything and believing almost everything that the RCC does, in the belief that we all are united in the historic faith, even to the point of agreeing on some matters concerning the Pope. Those who are very Catholic in belief and style are sometimes called Anglo-Catholics, but those who are willing to recognize the Pope as more than the most prestigeous bishop in Western history (most Anglicans would agree to that, if the infallibility and rule part of the Papacy were not part of it) have taken--recently--to being called Anglo-Papists. You mentioned our CF friend, Secundulus. He belongs to a very tiny Anglican church (I belong to another and very tiny one, myself, so that's no dig) that has broken with the rest of Anglicanism, even with the Anglo-Catholics, by appealingt to the Vatican to be absorbed into the Roman Catholic Church, hopefully while being allowed to retain some of our English traditions as Rome as already accomodated some Greek Catholics who, while being in the Pope's jurisdiction, worship the same way as Eastern Orthodox Christians do.

 

[Albion]

What exactly is Eschatology?

That's the study of end-times events.

And why shouldn't it be important to understand the Scriptures?

I don't know what you're asking here. Of course, it is critical that we understand the Scriptures. But we say that the scriptures are unspecific about the sequence of events that will accompany the Second Coming, while on the other hand, there are pre-tribulationists, post-tribulationists, amillennialists, dispensationalisats, iand some combinations of the above. Some churches make a great deal out of knowing exactly what to expect. We tend towards the teaching in Matthew that it can happen at any time, a coming that is like a thief in the night. But more than that, we Anglicans don't mind if there are people in our parishes who happen, as individuals, to be pre-trib, or etc. There are denominations, however, which make it an essential belief and a condition of membership to believe and profess one of these POVs.

 

[Albion]

Thank you Albion, you have been very gracious in answering all of my questions.

God Bless,
Nancy

I've enjoyed it and thank you for allowing me to give these answers.

Peace be with you.
A.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That's the study of end-times events.

That is a shame then as it is a revealing of New things which were hidden in the Old especially concerning the New Covenant with "israel/judah". Ah well , I have nothing further to contribute here....Peace

Matthew 26:3 Then were gathered together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, to the Court/aulhn <833> of the Chief-priest who was called Caiaphas;

Hebrews 7:12 For of being changed the Priesthood, out of necessity also, of Law a change is becoming/ginetai <1096> (5736),

Reve 11:2 and the Court, the-one with-out of-the Sanctuary, be Casting Out!! [#1537-#906 ek-bale (5628)] out-side/exw <1854> and not her you should be measuring, that she was given to the nations.

http://www.nsbible.org/sits_ts/v0s1.htm

The Camp--The Court--The Tabernacle--The Brazen Altar--The Laver-- The Table--The Lampstand--The Golden Altar--The Mercy Seat and Ark--The Gate--The First Veil--The Second Veil--The Significance of These and Their Antitypes.

 

[calluna]

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

One can make Scriptura say that God is evil, if twisted enough, so, with all respect, it's not a very useful question. But if one treats Scripture hermeneutically, there is no possibility of interpreting it as permitting the RC idea of 'sacrament' (the word does not occur in Scripture). Abraham had no 'sacraments', was fully justified because he believed God, and the saints are his 'children'.

This issue depends on what is meant by the word 'sacrament', and also whether there is belief in sola fide, as there is in Protestantism. If a sacrament is a sign of grace already received, or of grace available for sanctification, then this is compatible with sola fide, because a sacrament does not then make any contribution to justification. (A more usual word used to express this meaning is 'ordinance'.) If, otoh, a sacrament is a means of grace essential for salvation, it is incompatible with sola fide. In true Protestant theology, the second meaning is spiritually fatal, if applied. When referring to water baptism and bread-breaking/agape, true Protestantism generally refers to ordinances, if it refers to anything at all.

Luther was not actually a Protestant, because, while he claimed to believe in sola fide, he made eating and drinking the means of forgiveness, which means that he was 'Catholic-lite', and no more Protestant than the pope that he execrated.

Anglicanism seems to contain almost as many belief combinations as it has members. Like Lutheranism's tenets, its Articles are self-contradictory- Protestant, but also catholic, and are worded to permit a very wide range of interpretations, overall (for those who can tolerate self-contradiction, or who even bother to read their statement of faith). Anglicanism's evangelical tradition has historically taken the first-mentioned meaning of 'sacrament'; it is older than the catholic Anglican tradition, and is probably in the ascendancy at present, so it is not really correct to say that Anglicanism is sacramental in the catholic sense. Anglicanism is quintessentially a national institution, designed to be as inclusive as possible of all English and Welsh people, so generalised statements about Anglican theology are very likely to be misleading, certainly for England and Wales.

Lutheranism and Anglicanism were truly attempts at re-formation of the worldly church that had disastrously lost credibility. This loss was due to the revelatory use of Scriptures by ordinary folk, and the infamous scandals of clerics that all classes objected to. Both movements thrived for a time, but were rejected in favor of more truly Protestant ones, though these still were controlled by clerics owing their employment to worldly forces, not the Holy Spirit. The whole history of denominations is one of succeeding generations growing impatient with existing compromises, and searching for some expression of the church more in line with the NT church, though the advantage was often somewhat illusory. This is a continuing trend even today, when people are finally making their own churches in their own houses without reference to clerics at all.

 

[chestertonrules]

(( there is no possibility of interpreting it as permitting the RC idea of 'sacrament' ))

Did Jesus say to get baptized?

Did Jesus say to "DO THIS" in memory of me?


Did Jesus give his apostles the authority to forgive, or not forgive, sins?

 

[New_Wineskin]

One can make Scriptura say that God is evil, if twisted enough, so, with all respect, it's not a very useful question. But if one treats Scripture hermeneutically, there is no possibility of interpreting it as permitting the RC idea of 'sacrament' (the word does not occur in Scripture). Abraham had no 'sacraments', was fully justified because he believed God, and the saints are his 'children'.

This issue depends on what is meant by the word 'sacrament', and also whether there is belief in sola fide, as there is in Protestantism. If a sacrament is a sign of grace already received, or of grace available for sanctification, then this is compatible with sola fide, because a sacrament does not then make any contribution to justification. (A more usual word used to express this meaning is 'ordinance'.) If, otoh, a sacrament is a means of grace essential for salvation, it is incompatible with sola fide. In true Protestant theology, the second meaning is spiritually fatal, if applied. When referring to water baptism and bread-breaking/agape, true Protestantism generally refers to ordinances, if it refers to anything at all.

Luther was not actually a Protestant, because, while he claimed to believe in sola fide, he made eating and drinking the means of forgiveness, which means that he was 'Catholic-lite', and no more Protestant than the pope that he execrated.

Anglicanism seems to contain almost as many belief combinations as it has members. Like Lutheranism's tenets, its Articles are self-contradictory- Protestant, but also catholic, and are worded to permit a very wide range of interpretations, overall (for those who can tolerate self-contradiction, or who even bother to read their statement of faith). Anglicanism's evangelical tradition has historically taken the first-mentioned meaning of 'sacrament'; it is older than the catholic Anglican tradition, and is probably in the ascendancy at present, so it is not really correct to say that Anglicanism is sacramental in the catholic sense. Anglicanism is quintessentially a national institution, designed to be as inclusive as possible of all English and Welsh people, so generalised statements about Anglican theology are very likely to be misleading, certainly for England and Wales.

Lutheranism and Anglicanism were truly attempts at re-formation of the worldly church that had disastrously lost credibility. This loss was due to the revelatory use of Scriptures by ordinary folk, and the infamous scandals of clerics that all classes objected to. Both movements thrived for a time, but were rejected in favor of more truly Protestant ones, though these still were controlled by clerics owing their employment to worldly forces, not the Holy Spirit. The whole history of denominations is one of succeeding generations growing impatient with existing compromises, and searching for some expression of the church more in line with the NT church, though the advantage was often somewhat illusory. This is a continuing trend even today, when people are finally making their own churches in their own houses without reference to clerics at all.

Many good points .

 

[thereselittleflower]

No. It is because Sola Scriptura does not guarantee correct interpretation

Mel, if the approach of sola scriptura does not guarantee correct interpretation, then what does?

 

[williamcobbet]

One can make Scriptura say that God is evil, if twisted enough, so, with all respect, it's not a very useful question. But if one treats Scripture hermeneutically, there is no possibility of interpreting it as permitting the RC idea of 'sacrament' (the word does not occur in Scripture). Abraham had no 'sacraments', was fully justified because he believed God, and the saints are his 'children'.

This issue depends on what is meant by the word 'sacrament', and also whether there is belief in sola fide, as there is in Protestantism. If a sacrament is a sign of grace already received, or of grace available for sanctification, then this is compatible with sola fide, because a sacrament does not then make any contribution to justification. (A more usual word used to express this meaning is 'ordinance'.) If, otoh, a sacrament is a means of grace essential for salvation, it is incompatible with sola fide. In true Protestant theology, the second meaning is spiritually fatal, if applied. When referring to water baptism and bread-breaking/agape, true Protestantism generally refers to ordinances, if it refers to anything at all.

Luther was not actually a Protestant, because, while he claimed to believe in sola fide, he made eating and drinking the means of forgiveness, which means that he was 'Catholic-lite', and no more Protestant than the pope that he execrated.

Anglicanism seems to contain almost as many belief combinations as it has members. Like Lutheranism's tenets, its Articles are self-contradictory- Protestant, but also catholic, and are worded to permit a very wide range of interpretations, overall (for those who can tolerate self-contradiction, or who even bother to read their statement of faith). Anglicanism's evangelical tradition has historically taken the first-mentioned meaning of 'sacrament'; it is older than the catholic Anglican tradition, and is probably in the ascendancy at present, so it is not really correct to say that Anglicanism is sacramental in the catholic sense. Anglicanism is quintessentially a national institution, designed to be as inclusive as possible of all English and Welsh people, so generalised statements about Anglican theology are very likely to be misleading, certainly for England and Wales.

Lutheranism and Anglicanism were truly attempts at re-formation of the worldly church that had disastrously lost credibility. This loss was due to the revelatory use of Scriptures by ordinary folk, and the infamous scandals of clerics that all classes objected to. Both movements thrived for a time, but were rejected in favor of more truly Protestant ones, though these still were controlled by clerics owing their employment to worldly forces, not the Holy Spirit. The whole history of denominations is one of succeeding generations growing impatient with existing compromises, and searching for some expression of the church more in line with the NT church, though the advantage was often somewhat illusory. This is a continuing trend even today, when people are finally making their own churches in their own houses without reference to clerics at all.

So Luther wasn't a Protestant. I learn something new everyday.

 

[calluna]

(( there is no possibility of interpreting it as permitting the RC idea of 'sacrament' ))

Did Jesus say to get baptized?

No, actually.

Did Jesus say to "DO THIS" in memory of me?

Yes.

Did Jesus give his apostles the authority to forgive, or not forgive, sins?

No.

 

[thereselittleflower]

:
That is what we are asking sola scripturists.

Since you are a sola scripturist, would you like to answer that question, who gets to decide?

Correction. I am SOLO SCRIPTURIST. [/quote]

Since the OP requested that only solA scripturists answer his question, and you deny being a solA scripurist, shouldn't you respect his request and not offer answers?

 

[calluna]

Mel, if the approach of sola scriptura does not guarantee correct interpretation, then what does?

'Who', not 'what'.

 

[calluna]

So Luther wasn't a Protestant. I learn something new everyday.

Maybe I just reminded you.

 

[thereselittleflower]

:
Originally Posted by thereselittleflower
Mel, if the approach of sola scriptura does not guarantee correct interpretation, then what does?

'Who', not 'what'.

Would you elaborate?