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

[Albion]

What if what one is persuaded to be truth, is actually not the truth, but rather error?

OK, but how does one know that what one is persuaded to be the truth is not actually error?

So, no one has actually claimed the scriptures are wrong, this is just your assumption to explain why many are not sola scripturists?

Who has the Holy Spirit led into all truth?

The Holy Scriptures are the Word of God. Everything else is of human origin. Which is more likely to be correct? God's word, of course.

Who is correct, you ask? The question should be What is correct?

But you have declined to tell us what information you are inquiring about. Until we know that, it's impossible to identify who holds that belief.

 

[Albion]

Earlier it was asked who is determined to have a correct interpretation of scripture and why in Sola Scriptura.

I offered two examples with the Eucharist as symbolic or real and another as Jesus being fully God or Jesus being from God but not God.

Fair enough. I can only answer each person as they pose their particular questions. You want to know about the Eucharist, and that's a fair example.

I have already answered this in several ways. For one, there may not BE a right answer. Jesus did not ask us to dissect his words, but to celebrate the Eucharist, isn't that right. So long as we do that, it may be up to him to know the exact way in which he is present. IOW, WE the followers are the ones who insist upon making hair-splitting dogmas out of what may be non-essentials taken from Scripture.

The second answer I can offer is this. IN MY VIEW, the Eucharist is the real body and blood of Christ, but we have no way of stipulating exactly how this is accomplished by him. The wording of the passage in question suggests this. But the most important thing is that this is my conviction. You may hold another which I take exception to on the grounds that the scriptures appear to suggest something else. It still is the case that God governs this; the sacrament doesn't become something for you and a different thing for me.

In many churches that I know of that are Sola Scriptura only one interpretation is accepted as the full truth and even claimed to be from God. So how do those using Sola Scriptura know?

In the same way that those churches using Tradition know-except that they are using a lesser authority to decide (human speculation).

All these churches use Sola Scriptura from what I have read. They all claim to use scripture to interpret scripture and they all back there claims with detailed arguments.

So is Sola Scriptura meant to be this way?

SS means to use the best evidence available.

It does not guarantee that everyone will understand it. Nothing can. What is your alternative? Tradition comes up with different answers, too, you know, depending upon one's communion.

 

[CathNancy]

If I understand Sola Scriptura correctly that the meaning is that Scripture is the final authority, and that it is the interpretation of Scripture that leads to the differences, then how do you know whose interpretation is correct? I have heard it said that no church has it 100% right, but that makes no sense to me. Jesus said that the paraclete would come and lead the Apostles into all truth, and He did at Pentacost. But Jesus also said that He would be with us always, even to the end of the age, so it would seem to me that the Holy Spirit would continue to lead the church into all truth. Is Christianity today the way that Jesus intended? There are many denominations with many conflicting theologies and some of the conflicts are rather major in my opinion. How do you explain this? Would Jesus really have left His church to the mercy of men to decide what is true and what is not? Wouldn't Jesus have provided a means of keeping the faith pure?

Nancy

 

[calluna]

If I understand Sola Scriptura correctly that the meaning is that Scripture is the final authority, and that it is the interpretation of Scripture that leads to the differences, then how do you know whose interpretation is correct? I have heard it said that no church has it 100% right, but that makes no sense to me. Jesus said that the paraclete would come and lead the Apostles into all truth, and He did at Pentacost. But Jesus also said that He would be with us always, even to the end of the age, so it would seem to me that the Holy Spirit would continue to lead the church into all truth. Is Christianity today the way that Jesus intended? There are many denominations with many conflicting theologies and some of the conflicts are rather major in my opinion. How do you explain this? Would Jesus really have left His church to the mercy of men to decide what is true and what is not? Wouldn't Jesus have provided a means of keeping the faith pure?

Nancy

It is believed by Christians that God made His will known to mankind in the 66 books of Scriptures, and that his whole will, to mankind as a whole, was made known. It is not believed that God has failed to inform us of anything, or left anything unclear that it essential for us to know. Revelation of His will is complete, unambiguous, and unmistakable. Where there are disagreements, they are due to a) incorrect translation due to incomplete knowledge; b) incorrect translation due to deliberate distortion: c) incorrect interpretation due to accidental non-hermeneutic method; d) incorrect interpretation due to deliberate intent to distort.

By far the greatest source of disagreements is d), as well as denial that revelation of divine will is complete, unambiguous, and unmistakable, and therefore needs supplementation from 'Tradition', 'reason' or human wisdom.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It is believed by Christians that God made His will known to mankind in the 66 books of Scriptures, and that his whole will, to mankind as a whole, was made known. It is not believed that God has failed to inform us of anything, or left anything unclear that it essential for us to know. Revelation of His will is complete, unambiguous, and unmistakable. Where there are disagreements, they are due to a) incorrect translation due to incomplete knowledge; b) incorrect translation due to deliberate distortion: c) incorrect interpretation due to accidental non-hermeneutic method; d) incorrect interpretation due to deliberate intent to distort.

By far the greatest source of disagreements is d), as well as denial that revelation of divine will is complete, unambiguous, and unmistakable, and therefore needs supplementation from 'Tradition', 'reason' or human wisdom.

It sounds like you are saying that all Jesus taught is in the bible???

Is that what Sola Scriptura means?

 

[calluna]

It sounds like you are saying that all Jesus taught is in the bible???

What you must learn to do, Jack, is use the quote facility. And stop using the word 'you', except where necessary. Your posts and your thinking will improve greatly.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If I understand Sola Scriptura correctly that the meaning is that Scripture is the final authority, and that it is the interpretation of Scripture that leads to the differences, then how do you know whose interpretation is correct? I have heard it said that no church has it 100% right, but that makes no sense to me. Jesus said that the paraclete would come and lead the Apostles into all truth, and He did at Pentacost. But Jesus also said that He would be with us always, even to the end of the age, so it would seem to me that the Holy Spirit would continue to lead the church into all truth. Is Christianity today the way that Jesus intended? There are many denominations with many conflicting theologies and some of the conflicts are rather major in my opinion. How do you explain this? Would Jesus really have left His church to the mercy of men to decide what is true and what is not? Wouldn't Jesus have provided a means of keeping the faith pure?

Nancy

1. Sola Scriptura is the epistemological praxis of embracing God's inerrant, holy, written, knowable/unalterable, historically and universally embraced Scripture as the Rule ("straight edge") or Canon ("measuring stick") or norma normans as it's called in epistemology, for the evaluation of positions. The Authority of such comes from the Author - whom Protestants and Catholics both agree is God.


2. The issue of interpretation (hermeneutics) is another issue. Sola Scriptura is about the epistemological Rule, it is not a hermeneutical principle.


3. The issue of "who is correct?" is called arbitration. It's a moot issue if we don't agree on the Standard, the Rule, the Canon - which is the problem in Catholic/Protestant discussions. Protestants look to the Standard/plumbline/rule/canon of Scripture written by God and affirmed by all - objective, knowable, unalterable. The RCC looks to the "Tradition" that it itself has chosen, defined and interpreted so as to agree with self, the Scripture not on any page or in any doctument or tome but "in the heart of the Catholic Church," and finally to the Magisterium of the self same Catholic Church as chosen and defined by the Catholic Church - the rulings, decisions, interpretations and arbitrations of it itself alone, predeclared by self to be infallible and thus unaccountable ("Whoever hears the RCC hears Jesus" insists the RCC itself for itself alone). Thus, the RCC is looking to those 3 things, while Protestants are looking to Scripture as God inscribed it. It's like two people building a wall (or better, evaluating it) with two entirely different measuring tapes.


4. Catholics are actually not permitted to ask if the Catholic Denomination is correct. This would imply that the Catholic Denomination is potentially fallible in matters of faith and morals - which it itself insists is impossible for it itself exclusively. And it would imply that the arbiter for that question is Christians which the RCC itself reserves for it and it itself alone, exclusively and infallibly; the RCC will tell you if the RCC is correct you are NOT so premitted. See CCC 87 for starters.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What you must learn to do, Jack, is use the quote facility. And stop using the word 'you', except where necessary. Your posts and your thinking will improve greatly.

He could always use "ye" so it will not look like it is personal

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

Reve 2:17 The one having an ear let him hear! what the Spirit is saying to the Out-Called: To the one conquering I shall be giving to him of the manna, of the having been hidden, and I shall be giving him a counter/yhfon <5586> and on the counter/yhfon <5586> a name, new, having been written which no one has seen if no/except the one obtaining.

Acts 26:10 Which I also do in Jerusalem: and many of the saints I imprison lock-up beside of the Chief-priests authority getting, of being up-lifted beside them I deposit/kathnegka <2702> (5656) pebble/vote/count/yhfon <5586>.

Reve 13:18 Here the Wisdom is the one having mind let him calculate/yhfisatw <5585> (5657) the number of the Wild-beast for of man it is and the number of it six hundred sixty six. [Luke 14:28 uses "calculating"]

 

[JacktheCatholic]

What you must learn to do, Jack, is use the quote facility. And stop using the word 'you', except where necessary. Your posts and your thinking will improve greatly.

My apologies.

Could you answer my question?

 

[calluna]

My apologies.

Could you answer my question?

I could, but I won't, until you make your apology look genuine.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I could, but I won't, until you make your apology look genuine.

I have asked your forgiveness and that is all I can do. Sorry.

 

[calluna]

I have asked your forgiveness and that is all I can do. Sorry.

But the idea of Christianity is that one doesn't go straight back to repeating one's misdeeds after forgiveness. So the question cannot be repeated without major surgery, if it is actually the right question, or if there should not be a constructive argument rather than a question, which seems the most appropriate response in the circumstance, to me.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

But the idea of Christianity is that one doesn't go straight back to repeating one's misdeeds after forgiveness. So the question cannot be repeated without major surgery, if it is actually the right question, or if there should not be a constructive argument rather than a question, which seems the most appropriate response in the circumstance, to me.

I have forgiven you already calluna. Do not answer my question if you like. Just one little thing for you to consider.

[bible]matthew 18:21-22[/bible]

 

[calluna]

I have forgiven you already calluna.

You have forgiven me, now? Are you practising to be the next Bob Hope?

 

[thereselittleflower]

Originally Posted by thereselittleflower
What if what one is persuaded to be truth, is actually not the truth, but rather error?

OK, but how does one know that what one is persuaded to be the truth is not actually error?

So, no one has actually claimed the scriptures are wrong, this is just your assumption to explain why many are not sola scripturists?

Who has the Holy Spirit led into all truth?

The Holy Scriptures are the Word of God. Everything else is of human origin. Which is more likely to be correct? God's word, of course.

Who is correct, you ask? The question should be What is correct?

I think we all agree the scriptures are the word of God.

However, the correctness os the scriptures were never questioned here in this thread.

The question of the OP is indeed WHO has the right interpretatio (application/use) of the scripture among those who hold to sola scriptura?

That is a very important question.

But you have declined to tell us what information you are inquiring about. Until we know that, it's impossible to identify who holds that belief.

Iam sorry Albion, but the question was well asked by the Op.

Can you tell us WHO has the right interpretatio (application/use) of the scripture among those who hold to sola scriptura?

Is the answer no-one?

 

[calluna]

He could always use "ye" so it will not look like it is personal

That could, of course, be interpreted to mean a question that reads: 'Does Protestantism teach that all that Jesus taught is in the Bible?' Now that either looks like a somewhat daft question, or it reveals that the questioner thinks that Protestantism is like Catholicism, and has not yet got proper, synchronised answers worked out.

And many Catholics do think like that. They are utterly unaware of the vast quantity of scholarship of the highest calibre that has been produced by Protestantism. So Prots so often have to give them basic education on the 'net. Though some, of course, are feigning ignorance, or feigning some of it. Some of them are rather nastily surprised to learn the truth!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Originally Posted by JacktheCatholic
My apologies.

Could you answer my question?

I could, but I won't, until you make your apology look genuine.

Well, if you find it difficult to answer the question, we understand. Maybe you could take a stab at it anyway?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That could, of course, be interpreted to mean a question that reads: 'Does Protestantism teach that all that Jesus taught is in the Bible?' Now that either looks like a somewhat daft question, or it reveals that the questioner thinks that Protestantism is like Catholicism, and has not yet got proper, synchronised answers worked out. And many Catholics do think like that. They are utterly unaware of the vast quantity of scholarship of the highest calibre that has been produced by Protestantism. So Prots so often have to give them basic education on the 'net. Though some, of course, are feigning ignorance, or feigning some of it. Some of them are rather nastily surprised to learn the truth!

That appears to be a correct premise:

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

Originally Posted by JacktheCatholic
The RCC and EOC and OOC do not see ourselves as 'denominations.

However, many have decided to use this term for Catholicism too. So they have these denominations: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Protestantism.

But it should be pointed out that if we were to adopt this language, which is theologically against our teachings, then we would have RCC and EOC as untied within their 'denomination. We would have Anglicans divinding into three pirces or what we call "denominations". AND Protestants which are divided into THOUSANDS of pieces or denominations.

But for the Catholic Church to accept that it is a 'Denomination' it wpuld have to accept that Protestantism and Anglicanism are indeed Christian. It does not. It sees all those in these denominations of protesting churches as part of the body of Christ if baptised correctly otherwise they are not Christian in the Catholic Churche's teaching. No more Christian than Gnostics.

 

[calluna]

I think we all agree the scriptures are the word of God.

However, the correctness os the scriptures were never questioned here in this thread.

The question of the OP is indeed WHO has the right interpretatio (application/use) of the scripture among those who hold to sola scriptura?

That is a very important question.

Indeed, but you've had the answer. Or rather, two answers.

One answer is that the persons with the most hermeneutic interpretation are those telling the truth- and almost invariably there is a vast gap between the best answer and the next best, and there is no real choice to make.

The other answer is that no interpretation is necessary, once one is in full command of the facts. Even a child can tell what is right from wrong. Maybe only a child can do so, as Jesus himself indicated.

It's all so easy (provided you use Greek and Hebrew, of course! ).

 

[calluna]

Well, if you find it difficult to answer the question, we understand.

You do? I'd be most interested to know the reason.

And who is 'we'?