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

[JacktheCatholic]

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?

thanks

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I was only joking.

I just never expected to have you say that.

Always expect the unexpected from LLOJ.

Matthew 12:14 And the Pharisees/farisaioi <5330> having gone forth, held a consultation against Him, how they might destroy Him

Revelation 16:16 And They are saying to the mountains and to the rocks: Be falling upon us! and hide us! from face of the One-sitting upon the throne, and from the Wrath/orghV <3709> of the Lamb-kin

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Wow, this thread has taken off since this morning...I'll just say that Albion has done an excellent job explaining.

Yes... Albion has been very gracious.

 

[Albion]

You're very kind, guys. By the way, I'd like to ask this:

When it is asked, "Who is right," why is it assumed that someone or some church is always right about every one of a thousand different religious questions? Could it be that the Lutherans are right about X, the Catholics about Y, and the Pentecostals right about Z, etc.?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Sola Scriptura.

This term is used frequently by Catholics, with myself included, and used to say that Protestants or those that use Sola Scriptura are wrong in their interpretations of scripture.

So... who is right?

I mean, which denomination that teaches Sola Scriptura is correct?

1. You are confusing arbitration and hermeneutics with norming.

2. Sola Scripture is not a principle of interpretation - thus that aspect of your post is moot.

3. Sola Scriptura does not define who or what serves as the arbiter, nor how that arbitration is to happen. So that part of your post is moot.

4. Sola Scriptura embraces the final Rule ("straight edge") or Canon ("measuring stick") or as it's called in epistemology, the "norma normans" as God's inerrant, holy, knowable/unalterable, written, ecumenically/universally embraced, historic Scriptures as the Rule. This is at varience with the RCC/LDS alternative that embraces the teachings of self as the Rule for the evaluation of the teachings of self. If you have a Rule with better Authority than God's Scriptures, or is more universally embraced as authoritative, or is more knowable/unalterable, then share it.






.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You're very kind, guys. By the way, I'd like to ask this:

When it is asked, "Who is right," why is it assumed that someone or some church is always right about every one of a thousand different religious questions? Could it be that the Lutherans are right about X, the Catholics about Y, and the Pentecostals right about Z, etc.?

From the few that have contributed different Sola Scriptura points of view it seems that there are very individual approaches to this.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

1. You are confusing arbitration and hermeneutics with norming.

2. Sola Scripture is not a principle of interpretation - thus that aspect of your post is moot.

3. Sola Scriptura does not define who or what serves as the arbiter, nor how that arbitration is to happen. So that part of your post is moot.

4. Sola Scriptura embraces the final Rule ("straight edge") or Canon ("measuring stick") or as it's called in epistemology, the "norma normans" as God's inerrant, holy, knowable/unalterable, written, ecumenically/universally embraced, historic Scriptures as the Rule. This is at varience with the RCC/LDS alternative that embraces the teachings of self as the Rule for the evaluation of the teachings of self. If you have a Rule with better Authority than God's Scriptures, or is more universally embraced as authoritative, or is more knowable/unalterable, then share it.






.

I am sorry.

I thought Sola Scriptura uses scripture as the only source for everything including all these points you listed???

This of course is coming from the definition provided at Wiki that says:

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.
Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the reformer Martin Luther and is a definitive principle of Protestants today (see Five solas)
Sola scriptura may be contrasted with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaching, in which doctrine is taught by the teaching authority of the Church, drawing on the "Deposit of Faith", based on what they consider to be "Sacred Tradition", of which Scripture is a subset.

 

[Albion]

From the few that have contributed different Sola Scriptura points of view it seems that there are very individual approaches to this.

Beliefs vary. We know that. I was interested in the idea that some of us are right on some of the matters we debate, while some others are right about different ones.

Why do we assume, if we do, that such and such a church is 100% right all of the time and not that it depends on what the doctrine is?

 

[calluna]

Thanks for offering a different point of view.

I can't say how much I appreciate a Christian attitude.

 

[Melethiel]

I am sorry.

I thought Sola Scriptura uses scripture as the only source for everything including all these points you listed???

This of course is coming from the definition provided at Wiki that says:

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.
Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the reformer Martin Luther and is a definitive principle of Protestants today (see Five solas)
Sola scriptura may be contrasted with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaching, in which doctrine is taught by the teaching authority of the Church, drawing on the "Deposit of Faith", based on what they consider to be "Sacred Tradition", of which Scripture is a subset.

It nowhere says in the wiki definition that Scripture is the only source for everything. It DOES say that it's the final source.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It nowhere says in the wiki definition that Scripture is the only source for everything. It DOES say that it's the final source.

I am sorry.

I meant "scripture interprets scripture" or scripture alone.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Beliefs vary. We know that. I was interested in the idea that some of us are right on some of the matters we debate, while some others are right about different ones.

Why do we assume, if we do, that such and such a church is 100% right all of the time and not that it depends on what the doctrine is?

Does this understanding of having different or contradictory interpretations stand up to scripture?

I am puzzled when I think back to things like the Paraclete and such.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This of course is coming from the definition provided at Wiki that says:

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.
Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the reformer Martin Luther and is a definitive principle of Protestants today (see Five solas)
Sola scriptura may be contrasted with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaching, in which doctrine is taught by the teaching authority of the Church, drawing on the "Deposit of Faith", based on what they consider to be "Sacred Tradition", of which Scripture is a subset.

I have no idea where that contributer got such.

Sola Scriptura means Scripture Alone.
It refers to the epistemolgical praxis of norming and addresses the singular issue of what serves as the Rule ("straight edge") or Canon ("measuring stick") for teachings, positions, etc.

In norming, there are two issues:
1) What will serve as the standard of correctness. This is called the Rule or Canon, or in epistemology, the technicall term is "norma normans" - the norm that norms.
2) How will it be determined if the item under review "measures up" to the "measuring stick?" This is known as the arbitration.

Sola Scriptura establishes the first part.



It seems the contributor to that website was placing a LOT of ramifications and applications of the praxis - but are not a part of the praxis itself. It is true, in a sense, that if a teaching is not normable by Scripture, than it will not be normed. If I said that Mary was 15 feet tall, and that teaching is held up to the Canon of Scripture, I presume that most processes of arbitration would find that Scripture does not norm it (BTW, that term comes from a practice of holding a template behind a thin piece of leather to see if what was drawn was according to the template). Thus, the teachings that Mary is 15 feet tall would not be normed. Some would then conclude it could not be regarded as doctrine. TECHICALLY it would be an unnormed view - abiblical to use a popular expression. So, one could take from that that effectually, any DOCTRINES (things normed by Scripture) must be taught there. But it's really getting ahead of things and it's more a ramification of the praxis than an aspect of the praxis.




.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I have no idea where that contributer got such.

Sola Scriptura means Scripture Alone.
It refers to the epistemolgical praxis of norming and addresses the singular issue of what serves as the Rule ("straight edge") or Canon ("measuring stick") for teachings, positions, etc.

In norming, there are two issues:
1) What will serve as the standard of correctness. This is called the Rule or Canon, or in epistemology, the technicall term is "norma normans" - the norm that norms.
2) How will it be determined if the item under review "measures up" to the "measuring stick?" This is known as the arbitration.

Sola Scriptura establishes the first part.



It seems the contributor to that website was placing a LOT of ramifications and applications of the praxis - but are not a part of the praxis itself. It is true, in a sense, that if a teaching is not normable by Scripture, than it will not be normed. If I said that Mary was 15 feet tall, and that teaching is held up to the Canon of Scripture, I presume that most processes of arbitration would find that Scripture does not norm it (BTW, that term comes from a practice of holding a template behind a thin piece of leather to see if what was drawn was according to the template). Thus, the teachings that Mary is 15 feet tall would not be normed. Some would then conclude it could not be regarded as doctrine. TECHICALLY it would be an unnormed view - abiblical to use a popular expression. So, one could take from that that effectually, any DOCTRINES (things normed by Scripture) must be taught there. But it's really getting ahead of things and it's more a ramification of the praxis than an aspect of the praxis.




.

Thanks for sharing this defintion.

What is the "standard" and the "arbitrator"?

Who decides? Is it scriptural?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I am sorry.

I meant "scripture interprets scripture" or scripture alone.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with the praxis of Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is the epistemological embrace of God's holy, inerrant, written, knowable/unalterable, authoritative, historic, ecumencially embraced Scripture as the Rule or Canon for the evalution of positions. It's not hermeneutics and thus doesn't address interpretation at all.

What you are referring to is a common Protestant hermenteutical principle (NOT Sola Scriptura). In this principle (POORLY summerize as you indicated), the Author is assumed to be the text source for understanding a text. To put into literary terms, if I want to understand a particular theme in the writings of "Mark Twain," we can look for that same theme throughout his book and in others of his books - this, hopefully, will clarify what he means by this and what role it plays in his thinking. This is an alternative to looking at a single reference of it, declaring self to be the best understander of the theme, and then assuming that such is what he always means by that theme. It's a common tool in literary interpretation.

A common use of it actually comes from a treatice from Augustine. I forget the exact example he gave, but let's use Baptism. If we want to better understand what Baptism is, rather than looking at a single verse with a single reference to it - and then assigning self as the best one to understand what is meant, we'd gather ALL the Scriptures were God speaks of Baptism and hopefully the corpus of such will shed light on what God means by that. It's just ONE tool. No one says it works perfectly no matter what, but it can be one helpful principle.


I hope that helps.





.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thanks for sharing this defintion.

What is the "standard" and the "arbitrator"?

Who decides? Is it scriptural?

Who decides for you and your Denomination?

 

[Albion]

Does this understanding of having different or contradictory interpretations stand up to scripture?

No, God is not wrong or contradictory, so his word isn't either. But people can misunderstand scripture. This is a fact of life and will be so long as we are dealing with human beings.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Again, this has NOTHING to do with the praxis of Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is the epistemological embrace of God's holy, inerrant, written, knowable/unalterable, authoritative, historic, ecumencially embraced Scripture as the Rule or Canon for the evalution of positions. It's not hermeneutics and thus doesn't address interpretation at all.

What you are referring to is a common Protestant hermenteutical principle (NOT Sola Scriptura). In this principle (POORLY summerize as you indicated), the Author is assumed to be the text source for understanding a text. To put into literary terms, if I want to understand a particular theme in the writings of "Mark Twain," we can look for that same theme throughout his book and in others of his books - this, hopefully, will clarify what he means by this and what role it plays in his thinking. This is an alternative to looking at a single reference of it, declaring self to be the best understander of the theme, and then assuming that such is what he always means by that theme. It's a common tool in literary interpretation.

A common use of it actually comes from a treatice from Augustine. I forget the exact example he gave, but let's use Baptism. If we want to better understand what Baptism is, rather than looking at a single verse with a single reference to it - and then assigning self as the best one to understand what is meant, we'd gather ALL the Scriptures were God speaks of Baptism and hopefully the corpus of such will shed light on what God means by that. It's just ONE tool. No one says it works perfectly no matter what, but it can be one helpful principle.


I hope that helps.





.

I am sorry.

I was not saying your definition is wrong. I am not saying any definition is wrong.

Sola Scriptura seems to have a different definitions for different groups.

But I thought in Latin Sola Scriptura means scripture alone?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

No, God is not wrong or contradictory, so his word isn't either. But people can misunderstand scripture. This is a fact of life and will be so long as we are dealing with human beings.

It may be my Catholicisty coming through, and I apologize if it is, but didn't God appoint the Apostles to teach his Word and the Apsotles also appoint others to teach so that we would know the Word?

I apologize. I do not wish to debate and after this I will back away.

 

[Albion]

Sola Scriptura seems to have a different definitions for different groups.

It seems to me that you've been given very consisten answers here, though. We could all find people somewhere out there to give a wrong definition of anything, couldn't we? I know that there are different definitions of Tradition that people give--here on CF, for example--but I'm not going to say that because of this your religious concepts are contradictory, etc.

But I thought in Latin Sola Scriptura means scripture alone?

Think of it as meaning this--For the truth, we look to Scripture alone.


If one were to say Scripture Alone and not know what the context is, it would be possible to think that it's "alone" in any number of ways, but it's necessary to know what that aloneness refers to.