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

[Albion]

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

Yeh, I always wonder when people talk like that. But it doesn't have anything to do with Sola Scriptura.

Maybe I do not understand what you are saying?

This will be about the third time, then. Sola Scriptura means that we place our ultimate reliance upon the Word of God. It doesn't mean of these other things that get woven into every discussion about Sola Scriptura by those who favor something else.

If this is not clear enough, I'm open to further explanation, but you'll have to fashion a specific question focused upon some part of what I -- and others -- have explained repeatedly. We can't help with a more precise answer when what we are asked is just "I don't understand" or "But I heard someone say...."

 

[Albion]

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

It was a rhetorical question, Jack. I wasn't actually asking for a statement of your beliefs. If you ask us about interpreting the Bible, does that not necessarily mean dealing with...the Bible? I think we all know the answer to that, and it's
"yes."

By that I want you to understand that all questions of interpretation are secondary to Sola Scriptura. Put another way, whatever interpretation one comes up with, we're still dealing with Sola Scriptura so long as the Bible is the basis for that person's interpretation. The fact that two people have different interpretations of some passage doesn't negate the fact that both believe in Sola Scriptura, and it certainly doesn't mean that there is anything contradictory about Sola Scriptura itself.

But very well, I'll reword my comment to this:

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.

I also like having a dialogue like this.

Me too!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It still confuses me how a Lutheran who practices Sola Scriptura can say the Eucharist is not symbol and is real based on scripture and a Calvinist who sees it as symbolic only can still agree that Sola Scriptura is justified???

Is it because there can be many different definitions of Sola Scriptura?

 

[Melethiel]

No. It is because Sola Scriptura does not guarantee correct interpretation. It is not a hermeneutical principle. It is simply a statement that Scripture has the final say. Among the bodies that adhere to SS, there are many hermeneutical principles in play (grammato-historical, historical-critical, etc). That is why the constant RCC refrain about how SS led to all the evils in the church makes absolutely no sense to us.

 

[Albion]

It still confuses me how a Lutheran who practices Sola Scriptura can say the Eucharist is not symbol and is real based on scripture and a Calvinist who sees it as symbolic only can still agree that Sola Scriptura is justified???

Is it because there can be many different definitions of Sola Scriptura?

NO, it's because you are still mixing Sola Scriptura and the interpretation of Scripture together in your thinking.

Edit: I see, after making my reply, that Melethiel has answered you in the same way as I did (only better), so I'd hope that this fact alone--and we don't even belong to the same churches--demonstrates to you that we are offering you a very consistent explanation about this.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

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.

Here is the original post and the definition of Sola Scriptura.

Again:
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.

 

[Melethiel]

Here is the original post and the definition of Sola Scriptura.

Again:
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.

Yes. But where does it say "hermeneutical principle" or "guarantees correct interpretation"?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

NO, it's because you are still mixing Sola Scriptura and the interpretation of Scripture together in your thinking.

Edit: I see, after making my reply, that Melethiel has answered you in the same way as I did (only better), so I'd hope that this fact alone--and we don't even belong to the same churches--demonstrates to you that we are offering you a very consistent explanation about this.

The definition of Sola Scriptura is that scripture interprets scripture.

I have seen several Protestant interpretations that have completely different interpretations.

I have seen where Matthew 26:26 is either interpreted as literal or symbolic but not both.

This is contradictory to me and no one has cleared this up.

Instead I have seen contradictory definitions of Sola Scriptura and that is why I am referring to the OP where we have a definition of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Albion]

It still confuses me how a Lutheran who practices Sola Scriptura can say the Eucharist is not symbol and is real based on scripture and a Calvinist who sees it as symbolic only can still agree that Sola Scriptura is justified???

Let me deal with that first comment you made. Where do that Lutheran and that Calvinist come up with their beliefs, would you say? Now, don't tell me, please, that you want our ideas and that you are not the one to ask, etc. This is how a teacher leads a student to a conclusion--by asking him to think through a series of conclusions he makes for himself as he receives information. So just go with it. What do you suppose that Lutheran and that Calvinist point to as "proof" for the ideas that they have (as you described them)?

 

[Albion]

The definition of Sola Scriptura is that scripture interprets scripture.

If you answer the question I posed to you in the previous post, I think we can work through this.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Yes. But where does it say "hermeneutical principle" or "guarantees correct interpretation"?

I am trying not to debate here.

I am seeking understanding.

I still see contradictions.

If Lutherans see the Eucharist as real and Calvinists see it as symbolic and they both know this from Sola Scriptura, "scripture interprets scripture", then why the contradiction?

They both cannot be right and they both claim to be from God. So I still have this delemna in my understanding as to why?

 

[Melethiel]

I am trying not to debate here.

I am seeking understanding.

I still see contradictions.

If Lutherans see the Eucharist as real and Calvinists see it as symbolic and they both know this from Sola Scriptura, "scripture interprets scripture", then why the contradiction?

They both cannot be right and they both claim to be from God. So I still have this delemna in my understanding as to why?

Well, obviously, the Calvinists are simply wrong. We Lutherans would argue that the Calvinists are NOT, in fact, using SS but relying on metaphysics to come up with their interpretation (which is, in fact, NOT "symbolic" - that's Zwingli).

 

[Albion]

I am trying not to debate here.

I am seeking understanding.

I still see contradictions.

I was afraid when Melethiel employed language like Hermeneutical principle it wouldn't help you, but you do have to work with us, Jack. You can't just reply 'I don't understand' to every explanation. There are no contradictions, even if you think you see some. Please reply to my question a couple of posts ago.

 

[Albion]

Well, obviously, the Calvinists are simply wrong. We Lutherans would argue that the Calvinists are NOT, in fact, using SS but relying on metaphysics to come up with their interpretation (which is, in fact, NOT "symbolic" - that's Zwingli).

You used another big word, Mel.

 

[CathNancy]

Thank you for this thread Jack, I too would like to understand Sola Scriptura. Albion, if I understand your questions to Jack about where do Lutherans and Calvinists get their beliefs, I would say from Luther and Calvin who got their beliefs from their interpretation of scripture. If I am understanding you correctly though, Sola Scriptura and interpretation are two different things. Am I understanding you correctly? If so please elaborate on why they are different. If I am not correct, please explain.

Thank you and God Bless,
Nancy

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No. It is because Sola Scriptura does not guarantee correct interpretation. It is not a hermeneutical principle. It is simply a statement that Scripture has the final say. Among the bodies that adhere to SS, there are many hermeneutical principles in play (grammato-historical, historical-critical, etc). That is why the constant RCC refrain about how SS led to all the evils in the church makes absolutely no sense to us.

Give me Scriptures or give me death!!!

Matt 10:23 "Whenever yet they may be pursuing/persecuting/diwkwsin <1377> (5725) ye in the city, this, be fleeing into the other.
For Amen I am saying to ye, not no ye should be finishing/teleshte <5055> (5661) the cities of the Israel till ever may be coming/elqh <2064> (5632) the Son of the Man".

Reve 12:13 And when perceived, the Dragon that it was cast into the land, it chases/pursues/ediwxen <1377> (5656) the woman who-any brought forth the male.

 

[sunlover1]

I am trying not to debate here.

I am seeking understanding.

I still see contradictions.

If Lutherans see the Eucharist as real and Calvinists see it as symbolic and they both know this from Sola Scriptura, "scripture interprets scripture", then why the contradiction?

They both cannot be right and they both claim to be from God. So I still have this delemna in my understanding as to why?

Lemme help.

YOU say that you have the full deposit of truth (because of Tradition, ECF..)
EO say that same thing.

Y'all have different beliefs, so... how do I know who's right?
Something must be wrong with the "Scripture plus Tradition" way.

Nothings wrong with having the Scriptures as the plumbline to measure all beliefs against.
Men just interpret words differently.
Nothing mysterious about that.

 

[sunlover1]

Thank you for this thread Jack, I too would like to understand Sola Scriptura. Albion, if I understand your questions to Jack about where do Lutherans and Calvinists get their beliefs, I would say from Luther and Calvin who got their beliefs from their interpretation of scripture. If I am understanding you correctly though, Sola Scriptura and interpretation are two different things. Am I understanding you correctly? If so please elaborate on why they are different. If I am not correct, please explain.

Thank you and God Bless,
Nancy

Same way Catholics and EO, both of whom use Tradition,
come to different interpretations.
Same exact thing.

Lemme help.

YOU say that you have the full deposit of truth (because of Tradition, ECF..)
EO say that same thing.

Y'all have different beliefs, so... how do I know who's right?
Something must be wrong with the "Scripture plus Tradition" way.

Nothings wrong with having the Scriptures as the plumbline to measure all beliefs against.
Men just interpret words differently.
Nothing mysterious about that.

 

[BigNorsk]

The main reason it is confusing is because people say they are sola Scriptura when they are not.

Communion is probably a good example to talk about.

We see for instance that Lutherans who hold to sola Scriptura and the Orthodox based on their understanding of Tradition are in agreement concerning the presence of our Lord. While somewhat different language is often used, basically you see both groups believe in a mystery that Jesus' body and blood are really and truly present in a sacramental union. Both make an effort to not go beyond that because God hasn't revealed more than that.

Then you take the Catholics and many Protestants they also are in agreement. Both turn to the philosophies of man to explain Communion. Catholics adopted the idea of accidents and transubstantiation from philosophy. Many Protestants too take from philosophy the idea that a physical body can only be one place at a time and therefore believe it is impossible for Christ's body to be in many places at one time.

You don't find transubstantiation nor the absence of the Lord in scripture, that isn't it's source.

It gets confusing because people will say they are sola Scriptura and then go on to explain Communion using the philosophies of man.

So the problem is not different interpretation of scriptures, but different sources of doctrine. It's not interpretation that disagrees, it's the sources.

You Jack need to be like the Bereans and test what is taught and those who teach by the scriptures to see if it is true.

Now as for the persons or persons who claim the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, again we turn to scripture for if the enthusiast is speaking contrary to scripture that would mean the Holy Spirit is contradicting the Holy Spirit, something that cannot be. And if it is in addition to scripture it is unnecessary because scripture is sufficient. What happens over and over is that people insert themselves and teach their beliefs and then justify them by claiming they are from God.

It is a case again where we see Catholics and many Protestants again are in agreement. They claim to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit and so chose to follow that even when it conflicts with the Bible.

Once again Jack, you are instructed to test them, and the rule given is scripture.

So going back to the matter of the sacramental union we see the words of Jesus Christ, "This is my body", and "This is my blood." This in itself is sufficient to understand that they really and truly are his body and blood. We know that because scripture requires it.

15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=46700042#_ftn1
http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=46700042#_ftnref1The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (1 Co 10:15-22). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Scripture uses a rhetorical question requiring the reader to answer "Yes" to the real presence of our Lord. It goes on indeed to teach us that we are one body because there is one bread. Now note it's still called bread, not an accident as the Catholics get from man's philosophies. And how could just bread make us one? Of course it couldn't, it is Jesus' body, present in the sacramental union with the bread that actually unites us into one body, the body of Christ. And this is emphasized by the contrast between the false gods and they fact that they and food sacrificed to them are really nothing, while the body and blood of Jesus are indeed true and powerful.

So there, we have scripture giving us the truth and showing us the true understanding.

Hope that helps Jack.

Marv

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Same way Catholics and EO, both of whom use Tradition,
come to different interpretations.
Same exact thing.

Ahhh, the infamous word "tradition". That seems to be the key word the RCs and EO use.
Sounds like the makings of a new thread.

Haggai 2:6 That thus He says, YHWH of Hosts: Yet one little, she, and I am quaking the heavens and the land, and the sea, and the Dry/03004 yabbashah, 7 And I quake All of the nations, and they come, desired of all of the nations. And I fill the House, the-this, honour says YHWH of Hosts.

Matt 23:15 "Woe to ye scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! that ye are going-about the Sea and the Dry/xhran <3584> to make one proselyte, and whenever he may be becoming/genhtai <1096> (5638), ye are making him a son of geennhV <1067> twofold-more of-ye.

Luke 23:31 That if in the moist wood/xulw <3586> these-things they are doing, in the Dry/xhrw <3584>, what may be becoming/genhtai <1096> (5638)?