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

[thereselittleflower]

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.

So, if I understand you correctly, sola scriptura teaches that

1. scriptures can mean different things to different people and
2. the Holy Spirit will lead different people to different interpretations, and
3. they are all right even though they contradict each other?

So it is the Holy Spirit who responsible for all these contradictory and conflicting interpretations of the same scripture?

Wouldn't that mean the Holy Spirit given to lead the Apostles into ALL Truth, is contradicting Himself?

Do you believe the giver of Truth contradicts Himself?

But there again, how do we seperate symbolism from the literal and who decides that?

That is what we are asking sola scripturists.

Since you are a sola scripturist, would you like to answer that question, who gets to decide?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That is what we are asking sola scripturists.

Since you are a sola scripturist, would you like to answer that question, who gets to decide?

Correction. I am SOLO SCRIPTURIST.

 

[CathNancy]

With all respect, if the differences come from how the scriptures are understood, how do you determine who has the correct understanding? Using Jack's example of the Eucharist, if the Eucharist is or is not literally the real presence of Christ seems to be a major difference.

Nancy

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Correction. I am SOLO SCRIPTURIST.

Here is what a previous poster said concerning Solo Scriptura in which case I am "condemned" by the early Apostolic Churches.

Whoa is me!!!!!

Originally Posted by Melethiel
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.

 

[CathNancy]

LLoJ I cannot speak for Mel, but my understanding of her post was that the "Apostolic" Churchs often condem the idea of "Bible Only", not you personally.

Nancy

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLoJ I cannot speak for Mel, but my understanding of her post was that the "Apostolic" Churchs often condem the idea of "Bible Only", not you personally.

Nancy

I understand. Here are some more posts:

Originally Posted by JacktheCatholic
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.


Originally Posted by Albion
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.


Originally Posted by CathNancy
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



Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus
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.

 

[Albion]

LLoJ I cannot speak for Mel, but my understanding of her post was that the "Apostolic" Churchs often condem the idea of "Bible Only", not you personally.

Nancy

Whew. Much has transpired since I left, but Sola Scriptura is the Reformation principle, and that's the standard Protestant POV. As for Solo Scriptura, I suppose that some of the newer churches go that way, however, Sola Scriptura it's not fair to evaluate Sola Scriptura in light of whatever Solo Scriptura is.

While we are having some difficuly with understanding Sola Scriptura here, I'd also point out that Tradition, the opposite POV, is similarly dogged by all the same problems that have been raised about Sola Scriptura. I find that it is often misunderstood itself, even by Catholics who think the stand by it. Tradition means a consensus through time, and not anything about the Holy Spirit gradually revealing something new or that there is any "development of doctrine."

 

[CathNancy]

LLoJ knowing that there are many mistaken understandings of my own faith, I do not want to take what I have heard to be a true understanding of Sola Scriptura. This is why I am interested in this thread. I am trying to understand this theology from those who believe in it. It can be confusing when there are some who believe in SS but seem to say that they do not gain understanding of scripture only from scripture but also use their own traditions, history, the ECF's. I am trying to keep my own faith out of it in order to understand the faith traditions of others.

God Bless,
Nancy

 

[Albion]

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

By and large, that's right.

 

[Albion]

With all respect, if the differences come from how the scriptures are understood, how do you determine who has the correct understanding? Using Jack's example of the Eucharist, if the Eucharist is or is not literally the real presence of Christ seems to be a major difference.

Nancy

Clearly, there are many more differences than that. I think the Eucharist is merely something that Jack feels strongly about. But as to the main point...are we ready to move to which interpretation is correct? I don't think that second step is in order until we all feel comfortable about what Sola Scriptura is (not whether one agrees with it).

 

[CathNancy]

Albion once again this brings me to my post asking how do you know which understanding is correct. I don't see how all can be correct. Jack's example of the Eucharist indicates a major difference between denominations.

Thank you for your patience with me.

God Bless,
Nancy

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Whew. Much has transpired since I left, but Sola Scriptura is the Reformation principle, and that's the standard Protestant POV. As for Solo Scriptura, I suppose that some of the newer churches go that way, however, Sola Scriptura it's not fair to evaluate Sola Scriptura in light of whatever Solo Scriptura is

What would you consider the Bereans in Thessalonica to be?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

John 5:39 "Ye are searching the Writings/grafaV <1124>that ye are seeming in them life age-during to be having, and those are the ones-witnessing/testifying about Me".

Acts 17:11 These yet were more-well-generated of the in Thessalonica, who-any receive the Word with all readiness, according to day, examining the Writings/grafaV <1124> if may be having these

2Peter 3:16 As also in all the letters, speaking in them about these-things; in which are ill-minded any which the un-learned and un-steadfast are wresting/twisting/streblousin <4761> (5719) as also the rest of Writings/grafaV <1124>, toward the own of them destruction/apwleian <684>. [reve 17:8, 11]

 

[CathNancy]

I am very much interested in how you determine which interpretation is correct.

Nancy

 

[Albion]

It can be confusing when there are some who believe in SS but seem to say that they do not gain understanding of scripture only from scripture but also use their own traditions, history, the ECF's. I am trying to keep my own faith out of it in order to understand the faith traditions of others.

God Bless,
Nancy

This is a valid point, and the answer is that those things are taken account of by those who believe in Sola Scriptura. However, the easier way to understand this matter is to understand the opposite POV--Tradition. Properly understood it does not merely take account of history, etc. but makes a view of all of that into a second and equal source of divine revelation, next to the Bible. Now...if we understand that this can cause some eyebrows to be raised, and that it is not merely to take account of history and custom, we can see why the Reformation's rejection of it was encapsulated in the term, Sola Scriptura. IOW, it is hard to understand one sides' view without getting the other correct.

 

[Albion]

What would you consider the Bereans in Thessalonica to be?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

John 5:39 "Ye are searching the Writings/grafaV <1124>that ye are seeming in them life age-during to be having, and those are the ones-witnessing/testifying about Me".

Acts 17:11 These yet were more-well-generated of the in Thessalonica, who-any receive the Word with all readiness, according to day, examining the Writings/grafaV <1124> if may be having these

2Peter 3:16 As also in all the letters, speaking in them about these-things; in which are ill-minded any which the un-learned and un-steadfast are wresting/twisting/streblousin <4761> (5719) as also the rest of Writings/grafaV <1124>, toward the own of them destruction/apwleian <684>. [reve 17:8, 11]

I'm sorry. LLOJ, but I find that I often don't follow the point you are making when you post a verse with a word or two highlighted. Could you be more specific? And the link you provided didn't seem to help.

 

[Albion]

Albion once again this brings me to my post asking how do you know which understanding is correct.

They CAN'T all be correct. I don't know anyone who isn't some sort of way-out new ager who could possibly argue that they are all equally correct. However, this (as you know) is not about Sola Scriptura. Are we all in agreement about what Sola Scriptura means? After all, that was the main idea we were working on, and I'm not at all sure that all the questions and doubt have been resolved for everyone on the inquiring side.

 

[CathNancy]

How exactly does tradition play into the understanding of Scripture under Sola Scriptura?

Thank you,
Nancy

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'm sorry. LLOJ, but I find that I often don't follow the point you are making when you post a verse with a word or two highlighted. Could you be more specific? And the link you provided didn't seem to help.

Hi. That link was just to a greek/hebrew interlinear I often read the Bible with.

Notice Jesus telling this group they are "searching" the Writings while in Acts they are "examining" them. Any idea concerning the difference? Peace.

John 5:39 "Ye are searching/ereunate <2045> (5719) (5720) the Writings/grafaV <1124> that ye are seeming in them life age-during to be having, and those are the ones-witnessing/testifying about Me".

Acts 17:11 These yet were more-well-generated of the in Thessalonica, who-any receive the Word with all readiness, according to day, examining/ana-krinonteV <350> (5723) the Writings/grafaV <1124> if may be having these

 

[CathNancy]

I think I understand, Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the primary source given by God. Understanding of the Holy Scriptures however is where differences occur.

Nancy

 

[CathNancy]

Maybe I should not have used the word tradition in my post 177, I do not mean that you view tradition as I view Holy Tradition. I guess by tradition I also include history and the ECFs.

Nancy