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

[JacktheCatholic]

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.

Hi Sun.


I understand Sola Scriptura to be void of tradition as a measuring tool. The definition provided from Wiki says "scripture interprets scripture" so that you do not need anything to interpret scripture but scripture.

Yet I am now being told that tradition is used by some that are of a church that is Sola Scriptura. So my confusion is two part.

1st we have Sola Scriptura which only needs scripture to interpret scripture but we have some that say they are Sola Scriptura and use more than scripture to interpret scripture. This is a difference in definitions.

2nd we have many churches that have very different teachings and employ Sola Scriptura as their means to interpret scripture. Examples are the Eucharist being real or symbolic. And another is that Jesus is God or Jesus is from God but not God (Jehovah Witness and Mormon). There are more but these two should suffice as examples.

So those are my personal confusions with Sola Scriptura and where I see contradiction.

As to Catholicism that is something I did not want to bring in to this thread. I want to keep this soley Sola Scriptura so we do not go off in to Catholicism debates. Frankly that gets tiring and I really want to understand the theology of Sola Scriptura.

 

[CathNancy]

Let me re-phrase my quetion. If I am understanding correctly, Sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture is the source, interpretation is something else?

God Bless,
Nancy

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by sunlover1
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.

Let me re-phrase my quetion. If I am understanding correctly, Sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture is the source, interpretation is something else?

God Bless,
Nancy

But then the RCs ask "who knows who has the correct interpretation". The we go in circles again.
What exactly entails Interpretation?

 

[Albion]

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.

Welcome, Nancy. I was afraid some reader would take that approach. Please don't do that. That is no different from saying Catholics don't read the Bible but just believe what they are told by some priest.

The answer to my question is, of course, they both base their conclusions upon the Bible. That's all Sola Scriptura is--a reliance upon the Scriptures as sufficient for determining right doctrine.

If I am understanding you correctly though, Sola Scriptura and interpretation are two different things. Am I understanding you correctly?

That's right.

If so please elaborate on why they are different. If I am not correct, please explain.

Thank you and God Bless,
Nancy

Sola Scriptura is a commitment to use the Word of God for our guidance, as opposed to using other materials such church councils, traditions, the magesterium, etc., all of which are considered in your church to be means by which God's revelation is also received. We believe that the Bible is all that is needed and all that can be guaranteed to be of divine origin.

Then, just as with Tradition, men have to understand its contents.

There is no reason to confuse the two that I can see.

 

[CathNancy]

LLOJ I do not wish to debate, I wish to understand.

God Bless,
Nancy

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ I do not wish to debate, I wish to understand.

God Bless,
Nancy

Ok. What is it you do not understand about Interpretation of Scripture?

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 17:10 And kings, seven are. The five fall, the one is, the other not as yet came. And whenever he may be coming/elqh <2064> (5632), few him it is binding to remain.

 

[Albion]

Let me re-phrase my quetion. If I am understanding correctly, Sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture is the source, interpretation is something else?

God Bless,
Nancy

I like that much better, but I'd call it the object of our inquiry. Source can imply merely the starting point for something else. In either case, interpretation is a different issue.

Let me also suggest that Tradition, Sola Scriptura's opposite, ALSO requires interpretation to be understood. That's why bringing interpretation into a critique of Sola Scriptura is quite mistaken.

 

[CathNancy]

Thank you Albion, that is helpful. Mel said in an earlier post that there is a difference between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura, what is the difference?

Nancy

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thank you Albion, that is helpful. Mel said in an earlier post that there is a difference between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura, what is the difference?

Nancy

Not really sure myself. Solo would probably be my view as I do not go outside of the Bible to interpret it. Sola perhaps means reconciling the ECfs views of the Scriptures to what the Scriptures actually say. Another words, do Traditions line up with "what sayeth the Scriptures". Don't really know myself.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

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.



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

Thanks!

Very informative.

Discernment? I still wonder about that too. But that would be another thread I think.

 

[Albion]

Hi Sun.


I understand Sola Scriptura to be void of tradition as a measuring tool. The definition provided from Wiki says "scripture interprets scripture" so that you do not need anything to interpret scripture but scripture.

It doesn't mean that. It means that Scripture is intelligible.

Yet I am now being told that tradition is used by some that are of a church that is Sola Scriptura. So my confusion is two part.

Again, words have multiple meanings. We look to the history of what the Church thought (tradition) as a guide to knowing its mind, but the Bible is still the final answer. When you refer to Tradition, you are speaking of what is believed to be a second stream of divine revelation and one that is not explicit in the Bible.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Thank you Albion, that is helpful. Mel said in an earlier post that there is a difference between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura, what is the difference?

Nancy

I never heard that term Solo Scriptura before and so I do not know what to think of it.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Not really sure myself. Solo would probably be my view as I do not go outside of the Bible to interpret it. Sola perhaps means reconciling the ECfs views of the Scriptures to what the Scriptures actually say. Another words, do Traditions line up with "what sayeth the Scriptures". Don't really know myself.

Isn't Sola Scriptura Latin or something?

How does it translate?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It doesn't mean that. It means that Scripture is intelligible.

Intelligble???

Isn't that a term used with living beings?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Isn't Sola Scriptura Latin or something?

How does it translate?

Hmm. I am a Greek/Hebrew guy myself

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Albion again.

Reve 9:11 and they are having on them a king, the messenger of the abyss, name to him to-Hebrew, Abaddon/abaddwn <3>, and in the greecian name he is having Destroyer/Ruiner/apo-lluwn <623>.

Luke 21:28 Beginning yet to be becoming these-things, up-bend ye!, and lift up! the heads of ye, thru-that is nearing the Loosing/apo-lutrwsiV <629> of ye

 

[Albion]

Thank you Albion, that is helpful. Mel said in an earlier post that there is a difference between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura, what is the difference?

Nancy

Could you point me to that post, Nancy? Before answering this, I need to know how she explained the matter. I'm also going offline now, but I'll pick this up later. I'll say this for the moment...What I am explaining (and Mel) is the concept made famous by the Reformation. The Reformers used this term to speak of a concept about how we decide doctrine. In the years since--and like everything else in our lives--other people have offered their own version of almost anything that is part of the Christian religion, and this isn't confined to any particular church. So I know that some independent preachers these days are reinterpreting Sola Scriptura for their own purposes, but all I can do is explain the genuine article that still is a fundamental of the typical Protestant church.

 

[Albion]

Intelligble???

Isn't that a term used with living beings?

No, that would be "intelligent."

 

[Albion]

Isn't Sola Scriptura Latin or something?

How does it translate?

Sola Scriptura (Latin) = Scripture/Bible Alone.

 

[CathNancy]

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.

Albion this is the post I was referring to. Re-reading this it appears that Sola Scriptura would also take into consideration other sources, history, tradition, the writings of the ECF, but I am assuming as secondary sources? Solo Scriptura does not use these sources?

Am I correct?

Thank you,
Nancy

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Albion this is the post I was referring to. Re-reading this it appears that Sola Scriptura would also take into consideration other sources, history, tradition, the writings of the ECF, but I am assuming as secondary sources? Solo Scriptura does not use these sources?

Am I correct?

Thank you,
Nancy

Did you see this post here?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CathNancy again.

Not really sure myself. Solo would probably be my view as I do not go outside of the Bible to interpret it. Sola perhaps means reconciling the ECfs views of the Scriptures to what the Scriptures actually say. Another words, do Traditions line up with "what sayeth the Scriptures". Don't really know myself.