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

[LittleLambofJesus]

Maybe I just reminded you.

More like a non-Catholic catholic. Hey... that's me!!!

 

[calluna]

Would you elaborate?

Who else but the Holy Spirit?

 

[calluna]

More like a non-Catholic catholic.

Yes, one could well describe Luther as a catholic.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes, one could well describe Luther as a catholic.

Let's not forget my other bro, Tyndale.

http://christianforums.com/t1179374&page=14
Sola Scritura and William Tyndale

 

[Albion]

Mel, if the approach of sola scriptura does not guarantee correct interpretation, then what does?

What makes anyone think that there is such a guarantee? Time after time I read that since there are different interpretations, this means that the material being interpreted must be wrong. Well, if it's of God, it can't be wrong, although we can be.

And what's more, there is not one scientific truth, religious truth, or any other such fact that is not misinterpreted or misunderstood by someone or other. "That's life" when dealing with fallible human beings.

 

[Melethiel]

Wow, this thread has taken off since this morning...I'll just say that Albion has done an excellent job explaining.

 

[thereselittleflower]

They CAN'T all be correct.

I have to agree with you.

How do you know who is 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.

Well, someone in this tread actually did.....

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.

No, as the big question is still left unanswered.

It is good to hear that everyone who subscribes to sola scriptura are not right in their interpretations of scripture.

But who is right?

 

[Melethiel]

Lutherans are, of course

Seriously TLF, what do you want to hear? Obviously, everyone here will think their own tradition is correct, otherwise they wouldn't belong to it. Much as you want to paint this as the result of Sola Scriptura, it isn't - otherwise we wouldn't see division among the "Apostolic churches", but we do.

 

[chestertonrules]

Lutherans are, of course

Seriously TLF, what do you want to hear? Obviously, everyone here will think their own tradition is correct, otherwise they wouldn't belong to it. Much as you want to paint this as the result of Sola Scriptura, it isn't - otherwise we wouldn't see division among the "Apostolic churches", but we do.

The only road to Christian unity is the Catholic Church.

Jesus understood this, imo, and that is why he gave a single man the keys to the kingdom.

Without an ultimate authority in issues of doctrine, there will always be division among Christians.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The only road to Christian unity is the Catholic Church.

Jesus understood this, imo, and that is why he gave a single man the keys to the kingdom.

Without an ultimate authority in issues of doctrine, there will always be division among Christians.

All I can say to that is "In Your Dreams".

 

[Albion]

But who is right?

About what?

 

[calluna]

How do you know who is correct?

The persons who use Scripture hermeneutically. It's really very easy.

 

[Albion]

Without an ultimate authority in issues of doctrine, there will always be division among Christians.

As a matter of fact, WITH an ultimate authority there will always be divisions among Christians.

 

[calluna]

The only road to Christian unity is the Catholic Church.

There is no need for a road. The church is already united.

Jesus understood this, imo, and that is why he gave a single man the keys to the kingdom.

So there will be only a single person in heaven!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

As far as I am concerned, they all are

I should save this one for blackmail in the future.

 

[thereselittleflower]

:
Originally Posted by thereselittleflower
Mel, if the approach of sola scriptura does not guarantee correct interpretation, then what does?

What makes anyone think that there is such a guarantee?

Is that the pov of sola scripturists, that there is no guarantee they are right in their interpretation of scripture?

Time after time I read that since there are different interpretations, this means that the material being interpreted must be wrong. Well, if it's of God, it can't be wrong, although we can be.

Who has claimed the material is wrong?

And what's more, there is not one scientific truth, religious truth, or any other such fact that is not misinterpreted or misunderstood by someone or other. "That's life" when dealing with fallible human beings.

Does that mean that sola scripturists believe the Holy Spirit has not led any human beings into all truth?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I should save this one for blackmail in the future.

Be my guest.

 

[Albion]

Is that the pov of sola scripturists, that there is no guarantee they are right in their interpretation of scripture?

No one can be absolutely certain of anything in this life. That's true for Catholics and Protestants alike, all of us. We deal with what we are persuaded is the truth. We (believers in Sola Scriptura) are persuaded that the Word of God is more likely to be correct than the ideas of ordinary and sinful men, whether they be Church Fathers, great Bible scholars like Luther, or anyone else.

Who has claimed the material is wrong?

If it is not thought wrong, incomplete, or unintelligible, then why would anyone feel it necessary to look elsewhere?

Does that mean that sola scripturists believe the Holy Spirit has not led any human beings into all truth?

No.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

One can make Scriptura say that God is evil, if twisted enough, so, with all respect, it's not a very useful question. But if one treats Scripture hermeneutically, there is no possibility of interpreting it as permitting the RC idea of 'sacrament' (the word does not occur in Scripture). Abraham had no 'sacraments', was fully justified because he believed God, and the saints are his 'children'.

This issue depends on what is meant by the word 'sacrament', and also whether there is belief in sola fide, as there is in Protestantism. If a sacrament is a sign of grace already received, or of grace available for sanctification, then this is compatible with sola fide, because a sacrament does not then make any contribution to justification. (A more usual word used to express this meaning is 'ordinance'.) If, otoh, a sacrament is a means of grace essential for salvation, it is incompatible with sola fide. In true Protestant theology, the second meaning is spiritually fatal, if applied. When referring to water baptism and bread-breaking/agape, true Protestantism generally refers to ordinances, if it refers to anything at all.

Luther was not actually a Protestant, because, while he claimed to believe in sola fide, he made eating and drinking the means of forgiveness, which means that he was 'Catholic-lite', and no more Protestant than the pope that he execrated.

Anglicanism seems to contain almost as many belief combinations as it has members. Like Lutheranism's tenets, its Articles are self-contradictory- Protestant, but also catholic, and are worded to permit a very wide range of interpretations, overall (for those who can tolerate self-contradiction, or who even bother to read their statement of faith). Anglicanism's evangelical tradition has historically taken the first-mentioned meaning of 'sacrament'; it is older than the catholic Anglican tradition, and is probably in the ascendancy at present, so it is not really correct to say that Anglicanism is sacramental in the catholic sense. Anglicanism is quintessentially a national institution, designed to be as inclusive as possible of all English and Welsh people, so generalised statements about Anglican theology are very likely to be misleading, certainly for England and Wales.

Lutheranism and Anglicanism were truly attempts at re-formation of the worldly church that had disastrously lost credibility. This loss was due to the revelatory use of Scriptures by ordinary folk, and the infamous scandals of clerics that all classes objected to. Both movements thrived for a time, but were rejected in favor of more truly Protestant ones, though these still were controlled by clerics owing their employment to worldly forces, not the Holy Spirit. The whole history of denominations is one of succeeding generations growing impatient with existing compromises, and searching for some expression of the church more in line with the NT church, though the advantage was often somewhat illusory. This is a continuing trend even today, when people are finally making their own churches in their own houses without reference to clerics at all.

Thanks for offering a different point of view.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Be my guest.

I was only joking.

I just never expected to have you say that.