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

[thereselittleflower]

I appreciate that. However, the misrepresentation of a Bible verse like that should not be let pass without setting the record straight. Anyone could have done it. I merely read and replied first. No discussion, just pointing out what it actually says. Now we move on.

As for my commentary on SS, it's cleancut. We all agree that the Bible is divine revelation, don't we? Then all that we on the SS side are saying is, it's of unimpeachable authority. Also, God must have meant it to be sufficient for us or else he'd have added more to it. How can either of those propositions be denied?

To second-guess the sufficiency of the Word of God, and claim that we have to have this or that human's ideas bolted onto the Word of God does not make sense to me. If there were a reason, I'd hear it and listern carefully. But, I was a Roman Catholic, you know, and it was because there is nothing more sufficient or accurate than the Word of God that I rejected Tradition, the commentary and ideas of ordinary men.

The Church doesn't even adhere to its own definition of what supposedly makes Tradition a second stream of divine revelation, so it clearly (IMO) is false, and scripture is all we have to count on. Besides, the Bible itself says that it contains all that we need to know, so what argument can there be for adding anything to it?

I hope that's something along the lines of what you were asking me to contribute.

Albion, without getting into anything else but the question asked by the OP, who among those who hold to sola scripture have the right interpretation of the WORD?

I don't understand why this is such a hard question to answer directly and clearly.


Is it because NO ONE among those who hold to sola scriptura has the right interpretation of the WORD?

I am left wondering if this is what all these responses mean after several pages with no clear, direct answer to the OP . . .

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I am left wondering if this is what all these responses mean after several pages with no clear, direct answer to the OP . . .

That is your opinion.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Obviously, it's the Lutheran interpretation of the Scriptures that's correct.

No, seriously, even though I see the wink at the end, is everyone else wrong?

Which Lutheran group is right, since there is division among the Lutherans?

 

[thereselittleflower]

That is your opinion.

Well, if that is not a fact, (ie a serious clear answer) then pleas show me where a direct clear answer was given to the op . . otherwise, it is not merely my opinion.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No, seriously, even though I see the wink at the end, is everyone else wrong?

Which Lutheran group is right, since there is division among the Lutherans?

So not every group has the Fulness of Truth but the Orthodox and RCC do?

 

[thereselittleflower]

Who are you implying that does not have the right interpretation.

????

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

????

I doubt any answer will satisfy you tlf.

 

[thereselittleflower]

So not every group has the Fulness of Truth but the Orthodox and RCC do?

LLOJ, please stop trying to derail this discussion by drawing us into debate about our beliefs, whatever you conceive them to be.

This thread is for sola scripturists to answer a very good question . . . . I am not sola scripturist so I am not answering any such questions here.

I kindly ask you to stop these efforts to derail this thread. Thanks.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I doubt any answer will satisfy you tlf.

I am very interested in hearing your answer to the OP's question:


who (among the sola scripturists) has the correct interpretation of the WORD?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I am very interested in hearing your answer to the OP's question:


who (among the sola scripturists) has the correct interpretation of the WORD?

quote some of mine and other non-RCs posts and we can discuss them or have you not read thru them all yet?

http://christianforums.com/t7213672-is-catholicism-the-same-church-that-the-apostles-set-up.html

 

[thereselittleflower]

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.

Albion - I broke this apart to make it more clar what I see:

It is

a commitment to what it is that we trust.
Then comes the interpretation once we know what to interpret​

​

So scripture doesn't come first? "what it is that we trust" comes first?

How do you know what "what it is that we trust" is supposed to be?

 

[thereselittleflower]

quote some of mine and other non-RCs posts and we can discuss them or have you not read thru them all yet?

http://christianforums.com/t7213672-is-catholicism-the-same-church-that-the-apostles-set-up.html

Show me which one has a clear and direct answer so we can discuss it further.

Thanks!

 

[CathNancy]

Am I correct in believing that the differences between Protestant denominations is not Sola Scriptura but rather how the scriptures are understood?

God Bless,
Nancy

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Show me which one has a clear and direct answer so we can discuss it further.

Thanks!

Nope. I have already given my view in some posts and I will not do the work for you bringing them up again tlf.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Umm. Everyone on this board?

Well, since all sola scripturists on this board have different interpretations from each other, who is right?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Well, since all sola scripturists on this board have different interpretations from each other, who is right?

As far as I am concerned, they all are

 

[thereselittleflower]

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.

OK, so doesn't this approach result in an interpretation of scripture? It would seem from what you said above that the purpose of this approach is to ultimately result in interpretation of scripture, am I wrong?

So, to rephrase the question given your words above, who among those who have this committement to scripture has the right interpretation of scripture?

 

[thereselittleflower]

As far as I am concerned, they all are

So, giving the example Jack gave earlier about the eucharist, some sola scripturists believe it is to be literally the body and blood of Jesus,

Some interpret it to be a sympbolic representation only, and there is nothing literal about it.


So you are saying they are both right even though they contradict each other?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So, giving the example Jack gave earlier about the eucharist, some sola scripturists believe it is to be literally the body and blood of Jesus,

Some interpret it to be a sympbolic representation only, and there is nothing literal about it.


So you are saying they are both right even though they contradict each other?

I see it as symbolic myself and I don't see that as contradicting as each one in the Holy Spirit reads the Scriptures as the Spirit moves them.
But there again, how do we seperate symbolism from the literal and who decides that?

1 corin 11:26 For 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</I> 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.

 

[thereselittleflower]

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.

Ok.

Jack brought up a doctrine, that of the eucharist, which is different among sola scripturists, and all support their different doctrines on the same matter from scripture.

So who has the right interpretation of scripture on this matter?