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

[Machachachi]

I apologize for missing that LittleLamb, there was a lot of material to read to get caught up on this discussion, I guess I missed it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I apologize for missing that LittleLamb, there was a lot of material to read to get caught up on this discussion, I guess I missed it.

No worries mate. Even I wouldn't have the patience to go thru 41 pages which essentially keeps asking "How do we know who has the correct interpretation"?

 

[thereselittleflower]

(duplicate)

 

[thereselittleflower]

Sola Scriptura says that scripture interprets itself, and that it is readily apparent to the reader if that reader is rational. Sadly not many people are rational. There is no "correct" interpretation of scripture except for scriptures own interpretation of itself. The point of Sola Scriptura is to describe scripture as being self-evident, as in it speaks for itself. Which a patient rational reader will find that it does, since it is God's Word. Of course none of this makes any sense unless you defer to....

1 John 2:27
But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true—it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.

Of course this is an extremely risky way of looking at our faith. I have no reason to believe God intended it to be safe though.

1 John 4: 1-3
Dear friends, do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit. You must test them to see if the spirit they have comes from God. For there are many false prophets in the world. 2 This is how we know if they have the Spirit of God: If a person claiming to be a prophet[a] acknowledges that Jesus Christ came in a real body, that person has the Spirit of God. 3 But if someone claims to be a prophet and does not acknowledge the truth about Jesus, that person is not from God. Such a person has the spirit of the Antichrist, which you heard is coming into the world and indeed is already here.

Another verse speaking of personal accountability, which while not proving Sola Scriptura lends credit to the approach. But that's not the question. The question is who has the correct interpretation of the scripture, the answer is, The Holy Spirit.

You know the context of John's writing above was in regards to defend against gnosticism - ie secret knowledge needing special teachers, and denying that Christ came in the flesh . . .That is the context of those verses above - that is what they were intended to address, not make some universal doctrines out of them.

And I believe we would all agree that the Holy Spirit has the correct interpretation of scripture.

However, it is also obvious the OP was asking about human beings, so if the Holy Spirit is the only person to have the correct interpretation of scripture, then no sola scripturist has the correct interpretation of scripture - is that what you are saying?

 

[thereselittleflower]

(duplicate)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Ah well. I agree with Sunny this thread is like a big circle. If anyone is interested in discussing Translations of the Scriptures, I will be happy to do that on the Christian Scriptures board. Adios and Vaya Con Dios.

Daniel 10:1 In year of three to Kowresh, King of Parac, a thing/matter was revealed unto Daniye'l, who was called name of him Belt@sha'tstsar and Truth the thing/matter, even/and a great Army/Host [#06635], and he understood the thing/matter, and understanding to him the sight/appearance .

Reve 19:11 And I perceived the heaven having be openedand Lo! A horse, white and the One sitting on it/him being called Faithful and True and in justice He is judging and is battling........................14 And the Hosts/Armies, the in the heaven, followed to him on horses, white, having been inslipped/dressed linen, white, clean,

 

[thereselittleflower]

No worries mate. Even I wouldn't have the patience to go thru 41 pages which essentially keeps asking "How do we know who has the correct interpretation"?

Well, when clear, unambiguous answers are not forthcoming, and some continually try to take the thread off topic, what do you expect?

 

[thereselittleflower]

The thread is spent because the questions been answered.

Where has it been answered sunlover, I mean really answered in a clear manner, explicitly?

As far as 'going off topic', Albion and Mathetes are right, it will naturally
lead to other questions, but if those are off limits, then the thread is dead.

The OP was very clear what was to be the focus of this thread. If you feel that you can't answer the question explicitly, then that is your answer - it can't be answered explicitly.

That means no one can tell us who has the correct interpretation.

Some have implied this to be the answer. Others disagree, but offer no clear answer.

No one is forthcoming to claim to be error free in their interpretations,
and no one is presenting a denomination to be '100% correct" either.

OK - then that is an answer - no one among those who hold to sola scriptura is right in their interpretations of all of scripture.


That being the case, how do sola scripturists know who is right on any particular point of interpretation?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Well, when clear, unambiguous answers are not forthcoming, and some continually try to take the thread off topic, what do you expect?

Well, I suppose after 41 pages of responses, I will just have to wait to see the final answer to the question:

That being the case, how do you know who is right on any particular point of interpretation?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

OK - then that is an answer - no one among those who hold to sola scriptura is right in their interpretations of all of scripture.

Your (very, very Catholic) obsession with extreme individualism keeps shining through - as an absolute assumption....

Of course, the RCC MUST so assume in order to try to justify why IT and IT itself ALONE - exclusively and infallibly - is correct (CCC 85, 87, etc., etc., etc.)

That being the case, how do sola scripturists know who is right on any particular point of interpretation?

AGAIN, you are confusing hermeneutics with norming. If you want to talk about hermeneutics, start a thread on that.

IMHO, the one who CANNOT know is the Catholic since they aren't permitted to even ask the question, they are REQUIRED to accept whatever the specific, singular, particular, individual Catholic Denomination says, "with docility" and "quiet submission." Thus, the Catholic CANNOT know (or even ask) if the interpretation or teaching of the Catholic Denomination is correct. The RCC CANNOT know, either. The Rule for the arbitration of the interpretation IS the interpretion and the arbiter for whether self is correct IS self - just a perfect circle that CANNOT do otherwise than just run the circle. Thus the RCC cannot know, either.





Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Your (very, very Catholic) obsession with extreme individualism keeps shining through - as an absolute assumption....

Of course, the RCC MUST so assume in order to try to justify why IT and IT itself ALONE - exclusively and infallibly - is correct (CCC 85, 87, etc., etc., etc.)

The Rule for the arbitration of the interpretation IS the interpretion and the arbiter for whether self is correct IS self - just a perfect circle that CANNOT do otherwise than just run the circle. Thus the RCC cannot know, either.


Pa

- Josiah.

The OP ask that Catholicism not be brought up.

** 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.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The OP ask that Catholicism not be brought up.

Then you need to eliminate several things you keep interjecting into the conversation:

Hermeneutics (Sola Scripture isn't a principle of such)
Infallibility (Sola Scripture has nothing to do with such)
Individualism (Sola Scripture has nothing to do with such)

Thus, your entire post to which I responded was off topic. In fact, the title of the thread is off topic. You (and the opening poster) as ASSUMING the Catholic prespective and imposing and imputing it onto the topic, thus sidetracking it from the very start. Unless you are willing to remove those Catholic assumptions, the discussion cannot be about Sola Scriptura.




.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Unless you are willing to remove those Catholic assumptions, the discussion cannot be about Sola Scriptura.

Ok.

 

[Machachachi]

That being the case, how do sola scripturists know who is right on any particular point of interpretation?

1 John 4

Dear friends, do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit. You must test them to see if the spirit they have comes from God. For there are many false prophets in the world.

Does it need to be made more clear than scripture itself. We know because the Holy Spirit guides us. Context is not everything, context does not remove power, nor relevance simply because you say that it does. "For there are many false prophets in the world" (emphasis added), that is about as universal as a direction gets. You must test it, why because wherever you go, there are going to be false prophets, pretty universal.

I'm not trying to be inciting here, but I strongly disagree with you. If I were to use context as an excuse to ignore scripture when it is relevant, then no scripture is relevant since it was not written directly to me. It is an unsteady path to take, must I ignore the epistle of Timothy simply because it was written to someone specifically not me? Where does that line of logic stop? What is the point of scripture if I do not take its commands and thoughts seriously? Also, why would I not want to test the Spirit of teaching I receive? Do I lack the authority to question it? I think not!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

1 John 4

Dear friends, do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit. You must test them to see if the spirit they have comes from God. For there are many false prophets in the world.

Does it need to be made more clear than scripture itself. We know because the Holy Spirit guides us. Context is not everything, context does not remove power, nor relevance simply because you say that it does. "For there are many false prophets in the world" (emphasis added), that is about as universal as a direction gets. You must test it, why because wherever you go, there are going to be false prophets, pretty universal.

Well, we know one was taken care of.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Reve 19:20 and is arrested the wild-beast and with it the false-prophet, the one-doing the signs in view of it, in which he deceives the ones getting the mark of the wild beast and the ones worshipping to the image of it, living were cast, the two, into the lake of the fire the one burning in the sulphur/qeiw <2303>.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Then you need to eliminate several things you keep interjecting into the conversation:

Hermeneutics (Sola Scripture isn't a principle of such)
Infallibility (Sola Scripture has nothing to do with such)
Individualism (Sola Scripture has nothing to do with such)

Thus, your entire post to which I responded was off topic. In fact, the title of the thread is off topic. You (and the opening poster) as ASSUMING the Catholic prespective and imposing and imputing it onto the topic, thus sidetracking it from the very start. Unless you are willing to remove those Catholic assumptions, the discussion cannot be about Sola Scriptura.
.

The issue of sola scriptura should be able to stand on its own two feet to close examination without resorting to comparing it against another belief.

If one needs to compare sola scriptura to another belief in order to make it appear to be able to stand up to close examination, then that reveals that sola scriptura can't and something is very, very wrong with sola scriptura.


I have brought up with staff this situation of some continuing to try to make this about Caholicism and taking this thread off topic against the OP's wishes.


There was a mod hat post yesterday to stick to the topic of the OP. If anyone finds that they cannot do so, please find somewhere else to take these off topic issues up.


Thanks.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If you'll stop mentioning hermeneutics, arbitration, infalliblity and the nature of the church - and stick to the issue of Sola Scripture - I will not respond to those diviations.

So far, you have desired to discuss EVERYTHING EXCEPT the issue of the Rule/Canon/Norma normans or the doctrine of Scripture.





.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I am aware of what prooftexting is. I am also aware I defended the universal application of that passage, the defense you actually ignored.

How do you know your understanding of its application is correct?

(Now I ask this because I want to take this through a series of steps - you do answer it below, which gives rise to other questions so there is no need for you to answer this again here.)

As far testing it is concerned I test it against the Holy Spirit.

How do you do that?

I know I have the right interpretation of scripture because of the fruit that it bears, that which does not bear fruit is not from God. These ideas are thoroughly discussed in scripture, I'm simply repeating them.

Please elaborate - what kind of fruit does your interpretation bear?

22 But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things!

How is this a test of right interpretation?