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

[LittleLambofJesus]

By contrast, most "protestant" denominations today hold to Solo Scriptura, or the common "Bible only" idea that is often condemned by the "Apostolic" churches, and rightly so.

What about correct Translations? Are they also not a contributing factor?
In fact I just saw this today when looking at how translations use "stone" in Reve 2. How did they come up with that word
The D-R is about the only version to get it right.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Douay-Rheims) Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches: To him that overcometh I will give the hidden manna and will give him a white counter:

Reve 2:17 The one having an ear let him hear! what the Spirit is saying to the Out-Called: To the one conquering I shall be giving to him of the manna, of the having been hidden, and I shall be giving him a counter/yhfon <5586> and on the counter/yhfon <5586> a name, new, having been written which no one has seen if no/except the one obtaining.

Reve 13:18 Here the Wisdom is the one having Mind let him calculate/yhfisatw <5585> (5657) the number the number of the wild-beast/N for of man it is and the number of it six hundred sixty six. [Luke 14:28 uses "calculating"]

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The Wikipedia definition is not bad, but it is lacking in not pointing out that according to the Sola Scriptura that came out of the Reformation, Scripture is the ultimate and final authority, but it is not the only authority. Lutherans, for example, take tradition and the Church Fathers seriously, but we hold them all against the "plumb line" of Scripture. So, to take the Eucharist passages...we apply both the rule of Scripture interprets Scripture, but also take history into account. When exegeting the passage, we note: there is nothing to indicate that Christ is speaking symbolically. We simply need to take Christ at His word. For further evidence, we can pull in John 6, but because of the vague nature of that discourse, we do not use it as a primary prooftext. Furthermore, we can pull off OT typology, and the witness of the Patristics.

By contrast, most "protestant" denominations today hold to Solo Scriptura, or the common "Bible only" idea that is often condemned by the "Apostolic" churches, and rightly so.

So you are saying Sola Scriptura needs not only scripture but traditions too?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

What about correct Translations? Are they also not a contributing factor?
In fact I just saw this today when looking at how translations use "stone" in Reve 2. How did they come up with that word
The D-R is about the only version to get it right.

D-R meaning Douay-Rheims?

 

[Melethiel]

So you are saying Sola Scriptura needs not only scripture but traditions too?

"Need"? No. If somehow all humanity's mind were wiped and all that remained were a bunch of Gideons in hotel rooms, that would be sufficient to call people to Christ.

Should tradition be abandoned and ignored? No. Remember what Sola Scriptura was formulated in response to - the abuses of the medieval church in placing the decrees of the Bishops above Scripture. Sola Scriptura was officially formulated (we would argue that the basic principle exists in the writings of the Fathers, who pulled heavily from Scripture in all their writings) to say that Scripture is the plumb line against which we must hold all tradition, not the other way around.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So you are saying Sola Scriptura needs not only scripture but traditions too?

And those also differ from denomination to denomination, correct?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

D-R meaning Douay-Rheims?

Yes. I generally use the greek texts themselves and the D-R is not a bad translation from what I can see, but then I use a half a dozen to compare with as different versions use different greek texts.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

ByzMaj) Revelation 2:11 o ecwn ouV akousatw ti to pneuma legei taiV ekklhsiaiV o nikwn ou mh adikhqh ek tou qanatou tou deuterou

W-H) Revelation 2:11 o ecwn ouV akousatw ti to pneuma legei taiV ekklhsiaiV o nikwn ou mh adikhqh ek tou qanatou tou deuterou

TexRec) Revelation 2:11 o ecwn ouV akousatw ti to pneuma legei taiV ekklhsiaiV o nikwn ou mh adikhqh ek tou qanatou tou deuterou

 

[sunlover1]

Hi Sunny!! I just happened to be reading thru Matt and these verses stuck out at me.
Do you think there is any significance to the numbers 100, 60 and 30 Jesus uses? I am sure he wouldn't use this unless it had a meaning. I was perhaps trying to relate it to Dan's time, times, half a time but still working on it. Thoughts?

No, He wouldnt waste the space or the effort.

Thanks for bringing that up, you've piqued my curiosity.

With the many different interpretations from our brethren that believe in Sola Scriptura how does one know which is correct???

Guess I didnt explain very well.

Wait. I dont think I can, because we have totally
different ideas of what the "church" is.
To me, the church is made up of all of those who
are born again. For instance, if I were visiting your
family, I'd meet with your group of Jesus followers
for fellowship, worship, Bible study etc.
If I were visiting my sister Thekla, I'd meet with
the group she meets with...
Correctness isnt what we look for (IMO), it's fruit
and love one for another that determines who
are HIs.
(They'll know you by your love, one for another)
That's how I recognized ya.

</IMG></IMG></IMG></IMG></IMG>

 

[sunlover1]

well, in your case, just go by what your Denomination interprets it as

That's one way to look at it.

And those also differ from denomination to denomination, correct?

This is true and important for people to remember.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No, He wouldnt waste the space or the effort.

Thanks for bringing that up, you've piqued my curiosity.

I can't read the Bible without something just "jumping out" at me and I don't believe there has been a time when it hasn't. The Mind is a beautiful thing to "waste"

2 Timothy 4:1 Thru-witnessing then I, before the GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, of the one-being-about/mellontoV <3195> (5723) to be judging/krinein <2919> (5721) living and dead, according as the appearance/manifestation/epifaneian <2015> of Him and the Kingdom of Him

Reve 11:18 And the nations are angered, and came/hlqen <2064> (5627) Thy wrath, and the Time of the dead to be judged/kriqhnai <2919> (5683), and to give the wages to Thy Bond-servants, the prophets, and to the Saints, and to those fearing Thy name, the small, and the great. And to blight the ones blighting the land

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Wait. I dont think I can, because we have totally
different ideas of what the "church" is.

Not to worry. This thread is about why Sola Scriptura is right and how it works. So you need to subscribe to Sola Scriptura to voice your belief and since I am Catholic I need to stay out of any debate.

 

[thereselittleflower]

This is not about me or Catholicism.

I truly wish to hear how Sola Scriptura people view each other's interpretations and how it is resolved. Sola Scriptura is an interesting theology and I am trying to understand how it works and I think it best to see it first hand. So the need for a Theology thread on Sola Scriptura. I am just waiting for the many Sola Scriptura people I see in other GT threads to come in and share.

Thanks for wanting to include me LLoJ.

You question seems very clear to me Jack. I am wondering why no one has yet answered it.....

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Not to worry. This thread is about why Sola Scriptura is right and how it works. So you need to subscribe to Sola Scriptura to voice your belief and since I am Catholic I need to stay out of any debate.

SO when do you actually want to discuss the Scriptures?

http://christianforums.com/t7164949-do-not-weep-the-great-city.html#post46402357


Luke 19:41 And as He nears, beholding the City and He laments/eklausen <2799> (5656) on Her, 42 saying, "That if thou-knew, and thou, even indeed in the day, this, the toward Peace of thee, now yet it was Hid from thy eyes."

Reve 18:9 and shall be lamenting/klausontai <2799> (5695) and shall be wailing/koyontai <2875> (5695) over Her the kings of the land, the ones with her fornicating and indulging, whenever they may be observing the smoke of the refining-fire of Her

 

[Melethiel]

You question seems very clear to me Jack. I am wondering why no one has yet answered it.....

If you have nothing to do but make wisecracks, kindly leave.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Please don't falsely accuse. That was not wise crack. It was an honest observation. And I am not leaving.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You question seems very clear to me Jack. I am wondering why no one has yet answered it.....

Thanks for the bump.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

If you have nothing to do but make wisecracks, kindly leave.

I do not want any wisecracks either. I do not think TLF was doing that. Posting is a touchy business sometimes because we can not see each others faces or hear each others tones or see the body language. I heard that what we say is only 40% of how we communicate.

I appreciate what you have contributed so far. Thank you.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thanks for the bump.

I second that and please respond to post #32. Thanks.

 

[PassthePeace1]

The Wikipedia definition is not bad, but it is lacking in not pointing out that according to the Sola Scriptura that came out of the Reformation, Scripture is the ultimate and final authority, but it is not the only authority. Lutherans, for example, take tradition and the Church Fathers seriously, but we hold them all against the "plumb line" of Scripture. So, to take the Eucharist passages...we apply both the rule of Scripture interprets Scripture, but also take history into account. When exegeting the passage, we note: there is nothing to indicate that Christ is speaking symbolically. We simply need to take Christ at His word. For further evidence, we can pull in John 6, but because of the vague nature of that discourse, we do not use it as a primary prooftext. Furthermore, we can pull off OT typology, and the witness of the Patristics.

By contrast, most "protestant" denominations today hold to Solo Scriptura, or the common "Bible only" idea that is often condemned by the "Apostolic" churches, and rightly so.

Thanks for the clarification between, Solo an Sola. I can see where Sola Scriptura would have more checks and balances, than Solo Scriptura. But I was wondering who "we" are....what I mean by that, is it authorities within Luthernism, that interpret scripture....or does the laity have a role in defining and interpreting scripture?


Peace be with you...Pam

 

[eolculnamo2]

I believe the Church of Christ teaches "Sola Scriptura" the best.

Many other demonitations have twisted scriptures that they find "unreasonable." (i.e. baptism)

 

[Trento]

SO when do you actually want to discuss the Scriptures?

This brings to mind Paul’s oral instructions on the Eucharist [1 Cor 11:34] and Protestants anxiously awaiting the publication in the Antiochian Post of the last apostle’s obituary, at which point they are to rewrite their book of church order and eliminate everything based on oral instructions.