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

[simonthezealot]

Thanks Albion.

I had mentioned some scripture ealrier and asked how it should be interpretated as a way to get things going.

Would you care to comment?

Jack along these lines I am interested to know if you can tell me how the exodus from Egypt which was the greatest redemptive event in history prior to Christ work on the cross was celebrated prior to the new covenant?

You see we Christians don't recall the blood on the doorpost and the lintel, but the blood shed at the cross. The Lord's Supper is a memorial that Christ Himself instituted. He became the ultimate fulfillment of deliverance from sin and death when He died on the cross and shed His blood.

 

[thereselittleflower]

It was a great question.
I answered it on the second page.

Thanks, I did see that response, but I don't see how it actually answers the OP's question.

"who has the correct interpretation of the WORD?"

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thanks, I did see that response, but I don't see how it actually answers the OP's question.

"who has the correct interpretation of the WORD?"

Umm. Everyone on this board?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack along these lines I am interested to know if you can tell me how the exodus from Egypt which was the greatest redemptive event in history prior to Christ work on the cross was celebrated prior to the new covenant?

You see we Christians don't recall the blood on the doorpost and the lintel, but the blood shed at the cross. The Lord's Supper is a memorial that Christ Himself instituted. He became the ultimate fulfillment of deliverance from sin and death when He died on the cross and shed His blood.

My answer would probably include things outside of what is generally accepted in Sola Scriptura.

Maybe you could ask another?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The answer does not lie exclusively in the words of institution (This my body, etc) although that's the way most of these debates go. It's also in what he says afterwards about the meal and the Apostles repeating it after he's gone from Earth.

Because that wording suggests a transcendent meaning, the bread and wine appear to mean more than just symbols, not even symbols which call valuable memories to mind when the Eucharist is celebrated, or bond the communicants together. In addition, there is evidence from very early times that the first Christians saw the meal as more than just a symbol.

Therefore, we believe that in some way, it is Christ's person. But at the same time, we have no reason to think that it is LITERALLY parts of that same body he used on Earth, and we know that this idea didn't come into play until well into the Middle Ages. Transubstantiation is purely and completely a theory out of the Medieval mindset, as well as being dated from the Middle Ages, not the Apostolic period.

I'm answering to the question you asked, Jack, but I don't see how it relates to Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is not a way of interpreting. It is a commitment to what it is that we trust. Then comes the interpretation once we know what to interpret.

Thanks Albion.

So is this teaching using Sola Scriptura?

I am learning from you and others.

You also said "Then comes the interpretation once we know what to interpret". Could you elaborate please.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Umm. Everyone on this board?

LLoJ is your teaching the same as Sola Scriptura?

 

[Albion]

Thanks Albion.

So is this teaching using Sola Scriptura?

Absolutely.

You also said "Then comes the interpretation once we know what to interpret". Could you elaborate please.

Many people suppose that Sola Scriptura is some kind of interpretation of Scripture. It is not. It is a commitment to Scripture as our ultimate source of information. All that which we can make into dogma (and say that it is necessary for anyone to accept) has to be from Scripture. And the reason there is that it alone is trustworthy, being from God as we all agree.

As for interpreting Scripture, sure, we do have to understand the literal parts vs. the figurative parts, the place of cultural references, and so on. BUT that's to deal totally with the Bible, right?

So once we decide what we are going to use as our guide, we can talk about interpreting it.

Talk of different interpretations, etc. before we decide what to interpret simply puts the cart before the horse and confuses what Sola Scriptura means.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Absolutely.

Many people suppose that Sola Scriptura is some kind of interpretation of Scripture. It is not. It is a commitment to Scripture as our ultimate source of information. All that which we can make into dogma (and say that it is necessary for anyone to accept) has to be from Scripture. And the reason there is that it alone is trustworthy, being from God as we all agree.

As for interpreting Scripture, sure, we do have to understand the literal parts vs. the figurative parts, the place of cultural references, and so on. BUT that's to deal totally with the Bible, right?

So once we decide what we are going to use as our guide, we can talk about interpreting it.

Talk of different interpretations, etc. before we decide what to interpret simply puts the cart before the horse and confuses what Sola Scriptura means.

I noticed that also when I saw 2 different views concerning the 2nd coming.
Both of them UNSCRIPTURAL in my view.

http://www.gotquestions.org/amillennialism.html

According to Amillennialism, the millennium of Revelation 20:1–6 is being fulfilled spiritually in the present age before the return of Jesus Christ. Thus, the millennium or kingdom of Christ is in existence now. Amillennialists affirm that the millennium began with the resurrection and/or ascension of Christ and will be consummated when Jesus returns again to establish the Eternal Kingdom that is discussed in Revelation 21–22.

Evaluating Premillennialism: Part II - Christ’s Return and the Rapture by Cornelis P. Venema

No evaluation of Dispensational Premillennialism may ignore its teaching of a two-phased return of Christ, the first phase of which is commonly known as the rapture.
The common feature of all premillennial teaching is the claim that Christ’s return at the end of the age will take place before the period known as the millennium.

 

[Melethiel]

In addition, Sola Scriptura basically states that all doctrine must be supported from Scripture.

So, for example, take the Dormition of Mary. As Lutherans, we are free to believe that as a pious opinion, but because Scripture is silent on the matter, we cannot make it into doctrine.

 

[Albion]

I noticed that also when I saw 2 different views concerning the 2nd coming.
Both of them UNSCRIPTURAL in my view.

http://www.gotquestions.org/amillennialism.html

According to Amillennialism, the millennium of Revelation 20:1–6 is being fulfilled spiritually in the present age before the return of Jesus Christ. Thus, the millennium or kingdom of Christ is in existence now. Amillennialists affirm that the millennium began with the resurrection and/or ascension of Christ and will be consummated when Jesus returns again to establish the Eternal Kingdom that is discussed in Revelation 21–22.

Evaluating Premillennialism: Part II - Christ’s Return and the Rapture by Cornelis P. Venema

No evaluation of Dispensational Premillennialism may ignore its teaching of a two-phased return of Christ, the first phase of which is commonly known as the rapture.
The common feature of all premillennial teaching is the claim that Christ’s return at the end of the age will take place before the period known as the millennium.

Well, there are quite a few differing interpretations about the Second Coming. The point is that Sola Scriptura is not about guaranteeing a correct interpretation--not that this is unimportant to strive for--but what we subject to interpretation (the Bible, as opposed to something else like church councils's findings, the writings of the Church Fathers, what Augustine or Aquinas had to say, customs and legends, not any of that).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Well, there are quite a few differing interpretations about the Second Coming. The point is that Sola Scriptura is not about guaranteeing a correct interpretation--not that this is unimportant to strive for--but what we subject to interpretation (the Bible, not something else like church councils's findings, the wrigings of the Church Fathers, customs and legends, any of that).

Thanks. I notice when I bring it up it appeas it shoud be relagated to the Eschatology "guru" board.

Notice 1 corin 11:26 and Reve 19:11. If we are in the "millennium" then we don't have to do the communion.
That is IF Reve 19:11 is the 2nd coming. Anyone want to disucss this on another thread? Peace

1 corin 11:26For as often ever ye may be eating the bread, this, and the drink-cup ye may be drinking, the death of the Lord ye are according-messaging until which ever He may be coming/elqh <2064> (5632)


Reve 19:11 And I perceived the heaven having be opened and 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.

 

[sunlover1]

Thanks, I did see that response, but I don't see how it actually answers the OP's question.

"who has the correct interpretation of the WORD?"

I'm sorry if it was ambiguous.
My reference at the end of the
post.. that we look for the fruit,
not who's more or less 'correct'
in our eyes. Because we may have
a bit of dirt in our own eyes, how
can we know?
YOu might say we could use the teachings
of the ECF. But that would present the same
problem, who's interpretation of their letters
is 'correct'?
So what I said to Jack, was to produce and
leave the rest to God.
Surely He will guide us into all truth. But it's
a process of transformation that takes place
in our hearts as we prepare them for planting,
adn then the revelation from God, then...harvest.

Mark 4
And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground;
(The Word into the heart)
27 And should sleep, and rise night and day,
and the seed should spring and grow up,
he knoweth not how.
(meditation , seed growing, GOD does it, it has
nothing to do with knowledge it's like magic ya know )
28 For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself;
first the blade, then the ear,
after that the full corn in the ear.
(fruit, seed producing, revelation)
29 But when the fruit is brought forth,
immediately he putteth in the sickle,
because the harvest is come.


So we need to meditate on the Word of God,
(I was joking somewhat about knowledge, but
revelation doesnt necessarily require any
knowledge, God loves to use the weak things
to confound the wise)
and wait on God for revelation.

 

[Trento]

The answer does not lie exclusively in the words of institution (This my body, etc) although that's the way most of these debates go. It's also in what he says afterwards about the meal and the Apostles repeating it after he's gone from Earth.

Because that wording suggests a transcendent meaning, the bread and wine appear to mean more than just symbols, not even symbols which call valuable memories to mind when the Eucharist is celebrated, or bond the communicants together. In addition, there is evidence from very early times that the first Christians saw the meal as more than just a symbol.

Therefore, we believe that in some way, it is Christ's person. But at the same time, we have no reason to think that it is LITERALLY parts of that same body he used on Earth, and we know that this idea didn't come into play until well into the Middle Ages. Transubstantiation is purely and completely a theory out of the Medieval mindset, as well as being dated from the Middle Ages, not the Apostolic period.

.

St. Justin Martyr offers a glimpse of the Eucharistic sacrifice in 150 AD and this foodis called among us Eucaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh” (First Apology,1, 62).

Though the early Fathers did not use this exact terminology, the teaching was essential to their theology. The Fathers unanimously held to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Synonyms: alteration, change, changeover, evolution, mutation, rebirth, transfiguration, transfigurement, transformation, translation, transmogrification, transmutation, transubstantiation


Ignatius received his episcopal consecration at the hands of the Apostles themselves ("Hom. in St. Ig.", IV. 587). Natalis Alexander quotes Theodoret to the same effect (III, xii, art. xvi, p. 53).

He constitutes one of the most important links between the Apostles and the Fathers of the early Church. Receved from the Apostles themselves.

I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.​

--we believe because he recieved this directly from the Apostles backed up by scripture.​

Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes that in the early Church "the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice. . . . Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have "a pure offering" made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist. The Didache indeed actually applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist. . . . ​

"It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7). ​

There is no sacrifice without a body being presant.​

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Though the early Fathers did not use this exact terminology, the teaching was essential to their theology. The Fathers unanimously held to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I do not ascribe to that and there are threads going on other boards for that topic.

http://christianforums.com/f718-sacramental-ordinance-theology.html

http://christianforums.com/t7149501-real-presence-in-the-eucharist.html&page=8

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Many people suppose that Sola Scriptura is some kind of interpretation of Scripture. It is not. It is a commitment to Scripture as our ultimate source of information. All that which we can make into dogma (and say that it is necessary for anyone to accept) has to be from Scripture. And the reason there is that it alone is trustworthy, being from God as we all agree.

As for interpreting Scripture, sure, we do have to understand the literal parts vs. the figurative parts, the place of cultural references, and so on. BUT that's to deal totally with the Bible, right?

So once we decide what we are going to use as our guide, we can talk about interpreting it.

Talk of different interpretations, etc. before we decide what to interpret simply puts the cart before the horse and confuses what Sola Scriptura means.

Right? I would like to know what others think. Again I am not the one to ask.

I am finding this all to be a learning experience. I also like having a dialogue like this.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

In addition, Sola Scriptura basically states that all doctrine must be supported from Scripture.

So, for example, take the Dormition of Mary. As Lutherans, we are free to believe that as a pious opinion, but because Scripture is silent on the matter, we cannot make it into doctrine.

I see.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Well, there are quite a few differing interpretations about the Second Coming. The point is that Sola Scriptura is not about guaranteeing a correct interpretation--not that this is unimportant to strive for--but what we subject to interpretation (the Bible, as opposed to something else like church councils's findings, the writings of the Church Fathers, what Augustine or Aquinas had to say, customs and legends, not any of that).

That Sola Scriptura does not insure correct interpretation it makes me wonder about the times I was told the Holy Spirit is guiding someone.

Maybe I do not understand what you are saying?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Just as a reminder this thread should be for those that teach Sola Scriptura and not those of us that not teach it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Just as a reminder this thread should be for those that teach Sola Scriptura and not those of us that not teach it.

So does that mean RCs can't post?

Colo 2:14 Out-rubbing/ex-aleiyaV <1813> (5660) the down against Us handwriting/ceiro-grafon <5498> to the decrees, which was hostile to Us, and it has taken/hrken out of the midst toward-nailing it to the stauros/stake/stave

Revelation 21:4 and the God shall be out-rubbing/ex-aleiyei <1813> (5692) every tear out of their eyes, and the death shall not be any more, nor sorrow/penqoV <3997>, nor crying-out/kraugh <2906>, nor shall there be any more pain/ponoV <4192>, that the former-things pass away/aphlqon <565> (5627).'

 

[Melethiel]

That Sola Scriptura does not insure correct interpretation it makes me wonder about the times I was told the Holy Spirit is guiding someone.

Maybe I do not understand what you are saying?

Two different ideas. The concept of Sola Scriptura is distinct from the concept that the HS guides individual believers.