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

CaliforniaJosiah · May 3, 2008

JacktheCatholic said:
What is the "standard" and the "arbitrator"?

Who decides? Is it scriptural?

The "Standard" is what is regarded as correct. The best in epistemology is usually what has a firm universal embrace, what is knowable and unalterable, and has some historicity. In the USA, we have the Rule of Law as the Canon in civil matters. In Protestantism, we have the Rule of God's Scripture as the Canon.

The Catholic Denomination teaches,"The Bible is the Word of God and no greater assurance of credence can be given. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God is the Author of the Bible and therefore it is Authoritative. God inspired the penmen to write as God wished and guided them to do so without error." Protestants agree. We feel this contributes to the appropriatenesss of God's holy Scriptures as the Rule/Canon for our epistemological evaluations.

Who decides? Largely, the parties involved in the discussion althought there is usually a strong historic element. For example, in the USA, we affirm the Rule of Law binding on ALL, and this is all subject to the written Constitution. This is largely by mutual consent, although it is a solid part of our society and so one may not disconsent and thus be exempt. In Physics (my field), we use math and the Scientific Method. We use that Rule largely by mutual and common consent. I cannot declare my view correct because I view my view correct OR use my view as the Rule for my view. My peers will require that I hold it up to the Rule of Math and Experienmentation. Of course, in theology, we have a perfect Rule - one written by the ultiamte Authority - God (the author supplies the authority). And we ALL embrace that authority - and have for 3400 years since the first Scripture appeared on Mt. Sinai.

Is it biblical? Only in a general sense. We do see it illustarted (which is what we would expect of a praxis) - from Moses through Jesus and the Apostles. What is NE VER taught or illustrated is the RCC alternative of Sola Ecclesia Roma. NEVER did Jesus or any Apostle ever refer to the Authority of the RC Denomination or anyone who happens to be the Bishop in Rome or the Magisterium of ANY denomination. Nope. LOTS of use of Scripture as the Rule, none of the Catholic Denomination.

.

LittleLambofJesus · May 3, 2008

LLOJ [still misses the presence of the Orthodox denomination. Sigh]

CaliforniaJosiah · May 3, 2008

JacktheCatholic said:
But I thought in Latin Sola Scriptura means scripture alone?

It does, it means God's Scripture alone is the Rule/Canon/norma normans for the epistemological praxis of evaluating positions.

.

JacktheCatholic · May 3, 2008

CaliforniaJosiah said:
The "Standard" is what is regarded as correct. The best in epistemology is usually what has a firm universal embrace, what is knowable and unalterable, and has some historicity. In the USA, we have the Rule of Law as the Canon in civil matters. In Protestantism, we have the Rule of God's Scripture as the Canon.

The Catholic Denomination teaches,"The Bible is the Word of God and no greater assurance of credence can be given. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God is the Author of the Bible and therefore it is Authoritative. God inspired the penmen to write as God wished and guided them to do so without error." Protestants agree. We feel this contributes to the appropriatenesss of God's holy Scriptures as the Rule/Canon for our epistemological evaluations.

Who decides? Largely, the parties involved in the discussion althought there is usually a strong historic element. For example, in the USA, we affirm the Rule of Law binding on ALL, and this is all subject to the written Constitution. This is largely by mutual consent, although it is a solid part of our society and so one may not disconsent and thus be exempt. In Physics (my field), we use math and the Scientific Method. We use that Rule largely by mutual and common consent. I cannot declare my view correct because I view my view correct OR use my view as the Rule for my view. My peers will require that I hold it up to the Rule of Math and Experienmentation. Of course, in theology, we have a perfect Rule - one written by the ultiamte Authority - God (the author supplies the authority). And we ALL embrace that authority - and have for 3400 years since the first Scripture appeared on Mt. Sinai.

Is it biblical? Only in a general sense. We do see it illustarted (which is what we would expect of a praxis) - from Moses through Jesus and the Apostles. What is NE VER taught or illustrated is the RCC alternative of Sola Ecclesia Roma. NEVER did Jesus or any Apostle ever refer to the Authority of the RC Denomination or anyone who happens to be the Bishop in Rome or the Magisterium of ANY denomination. Nope. LOTS of use of Scripture as the Rule, none of the Catholic Denomination.

.

Thanks again for your posts.

Also I am trying to keep any Catholic theology out of this since it is regarding Sola Scriptura only.

Athanasias · May 3, 2008

CaliforniaJosiah said:
The "Standard" is what is regarded as correct. The best in epistemology is usually what has a firm universal embrace, what is knowable and unalterable, and has some historicity. In the USA, we have the Rule of Law as the Canon in civil matters. In Protestantism, we have the Rule of God's Scripture as the Canon.

The Catholic Denomination teaches,"The Bible is the Word of God and no greater assurance of credence can be given. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God is the Author of the Bible and therefore it is Authoritative. God inspired the penmen to write as God wished and guided them to do so without error." Protestants agree. We feel this contributes to the appropriatenesss of God's holy Scriptures as the Rule/Canon for our epistemological evaluations.

Who decides? Largely, the parties involved in the discussion althought there is usually a strong historic element. For example, in the USA, we affirm the Rule of Law binding on ALL, and this is all subject to the written Constitution. This is largely by mutual consent, although it is a solid part of our society and so one may not disconsent and thus be exempt. In Physics (my field), we use math and the Scientific Method. We use that Rule largely by mutual and common consent. I cannot declare my view correct because I view my view correct OR use my view as the Rule for my view. My peers will require that I hold it up to the Rule of Math and Experienmentation. Of course, in theology, we have a perfect Rule - one written by the ultiamte Authority - God (the author supplies the authority). And we ALL embrace that authority - and have for 3400 years since the first Scripture appeared on Mt. Sinai.

Is it biblical? Only in a general sense. We do see it illustarted (which is what we would expect of a praxis) - from Moses through Jesus and the Apostles. What is NE VER taught or illustrated is the RCC alternative of Sola Ecclesia Roma. NEVER did Jesus or any Apostle ever refer to the Authority of the RC Denomination or anyone who happens to be the Bishop in Rome or the Magisterium of ANY denomination. Nope. LOTS of use of Scripture as the Rule, none of the Catholic Denomination.

.

You seem to missing the point. The Catholics teach the rule of scripture and tradition, not sola eccelsia. The catholic point and I believe it is a strong one, is that all protestant denominations and scholars had to rely on Catholic popes and Councils to even know what the NT Canon is. They(protestants) are picking fruit from a tree they didn't plant.

JacktheCatholic · May 3, 2008

Albion said:
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.

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.

Earlier it was asked who is determined to have a correct interpretation of scripture and why in Sola Scriptura.

I offered two examples with the Eucharist as symbolic or real and another as Jesus being fully God or Jesus being from God but not God.

In many churches that I know of that are Sola Scriptura only one interpretation is accepted as the full truth and even claimed to be from God. So how do those using Sola Scriptura know?

Lutherans and Anglicans see the Eucharist as real and would deny symbolic as having any truth.

Pentecostals and Baptists would say the Eucharist is symbolic and would deny Jesus being present in the bread at all.

Mormons and Jehovah Witness will say Jesus is not God.

Seventh Day Adventists and Calvinists would say Jesus is God.

All these churches use Sola Scriptura from what I have read. They all claim to use scripture to interpret scripture and they all back there claims with detailed arguments.

So is Sola Scriptura meant to be this way?

LittleLambofJesus · May 3, 2008

Athanasias said:
You seem to missing the point. The Catholics teach the rule of scripture and tradition, not sola eccelsia. The catholic point and I believe it is a strong one, is that all protestant denominations and scholars had to rely on Catholic popes and Councils to even know what the NT Canon is. They(protestants) are picking fruit from a tree they didn't plant.

What made them "Catholic"?

JacktheCatholic · May 3, 2008

Athanasias said:
You seem to missing the point. The Catholics teach the rule of scripture and tradition, not sola eccelsia. The catholic point and I believe it is a strong one, is that all protestant denominations and scholars had to rely on Catholic popes and Councils to even know what the NT Canon is. They(protestants) are picking fruit from a tree they didn't plant.

I know where you are coming from but this thread is really meant for those that teach Sola Scriptura.

I am Catholic too and I am trying to keep my beliefs out of this because my belief is not based on Sola Scriptura.

I apologize for offending you and ask that we keep it to only Sola Scriptura.

JacktheCatholic · May 3, 2008

LittleLambofJesus said:
What made them "Catholic"?

LLoJ this is not part of the discussion here.

Thanks

LittleLambofJesus · May 3, 2008

All these churches use Sola Scriptura from what I have read. They all claim to use scripture to interpret scripture and they all back there claims with detailed arguments.

So is Sola Scriptura meant to be this way?

The way I see it, the RC Denomination holds no more the Fulness of Truth than mine or any other "denomination".

CaliforniaJosiah · May 3, 2008

Athanasias said:
You seem to missing the point. The Catholics teach the rule of scripture and tradition, not sola eccelsia.

The term "Sola Ecclesia Roma" does refer more to the arbitration. It comes from the Catholic Catechism # 85 among several others.

But the Rule/Canon for the RCC is as follows:

1) The Tradition of the CC as chosen, defined and interpreted by the CC to agree with the CC. This is usually listed first.

2) The Scripture not on any page or document or tome but "in the heart of the CC" (# 113) as interpreted by the CC alone (# 85) so as to agree with # 1 and that so as to agree with the CC. This the CC itself declares to be infallible if done by self.

3) The Leadership of the CC as chosen by the CC; the decisions, rulings, interpretations and arbrations of the CC itself - infallable/exclusively

These 3 are "inseparable, equal and supplimental." If something is taught in #3, it MUST be taught in # 2 and #1 even if "implied" in ways only the CC can "see" since all 3 are True and Revelatory and Divine and thus all equal. They form one UNITED, INSEPARBABLE "source" or "stream."

The LDS (the only other denomination known to use to use this rubric) uses this excellent illustration to refer to what they call "The Three Legged Stool." They mention to think of a color TV tube. It has 3 "guns" - yellow, red, green. Each produces little "dots" on the screen. Each separate shows only a tiny part of the picture and would actually be misleading, but all 3 TOGETHER - each supplying their "part" creates a picture that is clear.

The catholic point and I believe it is a strong one, is that all protestant denominations and scholars had to rely on Catholic popes and Councils to even know what the NT Canon is. They(protestants) are picking fruit from a tree they didn't plant.

1. No one is saying the Catholic Denomination MUST be wrong about everything it has ever said or done. I agree with it 95% of the time.....

2. Protestants do NOT rely on the Council of Trent - the official embrace of the Canon in the CC (it happened after Luther was died!). We rely on the consensus of God's people - the church. This existed vis-a-vis the NT canon before there's any evidence that the Catholic Denomination existed at all.

.

CaliforniaJosiah · May 3, 2008

JacktheCatholic said:
Also I am trying to keep any Catholic theology out of this since it is regarding Sola Scriptura only.

So the reality that Sola Scriptura is a praxis that is an application of a Doctrine we have in common is moot to the discussion?

From MY perspective, the fact that we have the same doctrine of Scripture and regard Scirpture to have the same Author (and thus Authority) is very much the point of Sola Scriptura.

.

JacktheCatholic · May 3, 2008

CaliforniaJosiah said:
So the reality that Sola Scriptura is a praxis that is an application of a Doctrine we have in common is moot to the discussion?

From MY perspective, the fact that we have the same doctrine of Scripture and regard Scirpture to have the same Author (and thus Authority) is very much the point of Sola Scriptura.

.

Again, I am not here to debate and I ask that Catholicism or any other non Sola Scriptura church be left out of this thread.

Thanks, I know you will stick to the topic of the OP.

JacktheCatholic · May 3, 2008

JacktheCatholic said:
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?

Lutheran? Anglican? Baptist? Pentecostal? Calvinism? Non Denominational? Jehovah Witness? Mormon? Seventh Day Adventists? Evangelicals? Or any other that is not mentioned?

AND WHY?

Seems to me that God is Truth and since there is but one God then there is only One Truth. Which denomination has it?

* For this discussion we will leave out all churches that do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura.

Also we will be using Wikipedia's definition of Sola Scriptura.

Quote:
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.
LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

** On a personal note I am very interested to see what others have to say on this topic since Catholicism will not be a part of this debate.

LittleLambofJesus · May 3, 2008

2 Corin 6:16 "Any yet agreement sanctuary of God with idols? For ye are a sanctuary of God are, living, according as said the God: `That I will dwell in them, and will be walking-about, and I will be to them God, and they shall be to Me a People,
17 wherefore, come forth/exelqete <1831> (5628) out of midst of Them, and be separated, saith Lord, and an unclean-thing do not touch, and I--I will receive you,
18 And I shall be to ye as a father, and ye shall be to Me as sons and daughters is saying Lord Almighty/ALL-HOLDER/panto-kratwr <3841>'".

Reve 18:4 And I hear another voice out of the heaven, saying, `Come forth/exelqete <1831> (5628)! the People of Me, out of Her, that no ye may not being together-communioning to the Sins of her, and out of the stripes of her that no ye may be getting.

CaliforniaJosiah · May 3, 2008

JacktheCatholic said:
Again, I am not here to debate and I ask that Catholicism or any other non Sola Scriptura church be left out of this thread.

Thanks, I know you will stick to the topic of the OP.

Sola Scriptura is about the Rule/Canon in the epistemological praxis of evaluating positions. The reasons for it are relevant, and if you - as a Catholic reject it - the doctrine of the Catholic Church regarding Scripture is relevant.

.

thereselittleflower · May 4, 2008

Albion said:
:
Originally Posted by thereselittleflower
Is that the pov of sola scripturists, that there is no guarantee they are right in their interpretation of scripture

Click to expand...

No one can be absolutely certain of anything in this life. That's true for Catholics and Protestants alike, all of us. We deal with what we are persuaded is the truth.

What if what one is persuaded to be truth, is actually not the truth, but rather error?

We (believers in Sola Scriptura) are persuaded that the Word of God is more likely to be correct than the ideas of ordinary and sinful men, whether they be Church Fathers, great Bible scholars like Luther, or anyone else.

OK, but how does one know that what one is persuaded to be the truth is not actually error?

Who has claimed the material is wrong?

Click to expand...

If it is not thought wrong, incomplete, or unintelligible, then why would anyone feel it necessary to look elsewhere?

So, no one has actually claimed the scriptures are wrong, this is just your assumption to explain why many are not sola scripturists?

Does that mean that sola scripturists believe the Holy Spirit has not led any human beings into all truth?

Click to expand...

No.

Who has the Holy Spirit led into all truth?

thereselittleflower · May 4, 2008

LittleLambofJesus said:
:
All these churches use Sola Scriptura from what I have read. They all claim to use scripture to interpret scripture and they all back there claims with detailed arguments.

So is Sola Scriptura meant to be this way?[\quote] The way I see it, the RC Denomination holds no more the Fulness of Truth than mine or any other "denomination".

Click to expand...

As Jack has repeatedly stated, this thread is not about the Catholic faith and has asked posters to honor this and stick to the topic.

Is there a reason why you haven't honored his request?

thereselittleflower · May 4, 2008

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Originally Posted by JacktheCatholic

But I thought in Latin Sola Scriptura means scripture alone?

Click to expand...

It does, it means God's Scripture alone is the Rule/Canon/norma normans for the epistemological praxis of evaluating positions.

Who,then, who holds to sola scriptura, is correct in their interpretaion/use/application of scripture?

calluna · May 4, 2008

thereselittleflower said:
Who,then, who holds to sola scriptura, is correct in their interpretaion/use/application of scripture?

It is believed by Christians that God made His will known to mankind in the 66 books of Scriptures, and that his whole will, to mankind as a whole, was made known. It is not believed that God has failed to inform us of anything, or left anything unclear that it essential for us to know. Revelation of His will is complete, unambiguous, and unmistakable. Where there are disagreements, they are due to a) incorrect translation due to incomplete knowledge; b) incorrect translation due to deliberate distortion: c) incorrect interpretation due to accidental non-hermeneutic method; d) incorrect interpretation due to deliberate intent to distort.

By far the greatest source of disagreements is d), as well as denial that revelation of divine will is complete, unambiguous, and unmistakable, and therefore needs supplementation from 'Tradition', 'reason' or human wisdom.

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

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Well-Known Member

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Regular Member

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency