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

[thereselittleflower]

Quote:
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!

So, it sounds like answering the OP's question should be fairly easy for you - who has the correct interprtetion of scripture among those who hold to sola scriptura?

Anyone?

No-one?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

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.

LLoJ please do not bring other threads in to this one and please let us all try to stay on topic of the OP. I wish to remain charitable with you but you keep trying to upset this thread. Please be considerate of others and adhere to the OP.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So, it sounds like answering the OP's question should be fairly easy for you - who has the correct interprtetion of scripture among those who hold to sola scriptura?

Anyone?

No-one?

I do. Next question?

 

[LJSGM]

The gospel is pretty simple. It is men that make it complicated, and cause confusion by adding to it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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! ).

That would also help

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LJSGM 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 Ruiner/Whole-Looser/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

 

[calluna]

So, it sounds like answering the OP's question should be fairly easy for you - who has the correct interprtetion of scripture among those who hold to sola scriptura?

Anyone?

Possibly not.

No-one?

Possibly.

 

[Athanasias]

The term "Sola Ecclesia Roma" does refer more to the arbitration. It comes from the Catholic Catechism # 85 among several others.

But the Rule/Canon for the RCC is as follows:

1) The Tradition of the CC as chosen, defined and interpreted by the CC to agree with the CC. This is usually listed first.

2) The Scripture not on any page or document or tome but "in the heart of the CC" (# 113) as interpreted by the CC alone (# 85) so as to agree with # 1 and that so as to agree with the CC. This the CC itself declares to be infallible if done by self.

3) The Leadership of the CC as chosen by the CC; the decisions, rulings, interpretations and arbrations of the CC itself - infallable/exclusively

These 3 are "inseparable, equal and supplimental." If something is taught in #3, it MUST be taught in # 2 and #1 even if "implied" in ways only the CC can "see" since all 3 are True and Revelatory and Divine and thus all equal. They form one UNITED, INSEPARBABLE "source" or "stream."

The LDS (the only other denomination known to use to use this rubric) uses this excellent illustration to refer to what they call "The Three Legged Stool." They mention to think of a color TV tube. It has 3 "guns" - yellow, red, green. Each produces little "dots" on the screen. Each separate shows only a tiny part of the picture and would actually be misleading, but all 3 TOGETHER - each supplying their "part" creates a picture that is clear.




1. No one is saying the Catholic Denomination MUST be wrong about everything it has ever said or done. I agree with it 95% of the time.....

2. Protestants do NOT rely on the Council of Trent - the official embrace of the Canon in the CC (it happened after Luther was died!). We rely on the consensus of God's people - the church. This existed vis-a-vis the NT canon before there's any evidence that the Catholic Denomination existed at all.






.

A few problems. To begin with, you mistakenly think that the Church has infallibly interpreted all the bible passages. In fact it has only spoken infallibly and bound on the faithful 8 passages in the bible. And even these passages can have polyvalent meanings taken from apostolic tradition and solid scholarship apart from the infallible declarations on them so as long as no one also denies the infallible teaching. Much of our interpetation of scripture comes from the long standing apostolic tradition handed down to us in the Fathers and scholars and not from magisterial declarations. Sola ecclesia is not what the Catholic church teaches, it teaches scripture, and tradition. The When the magisterium defines something officially(Infallibly) it is something that has been already present in scripture(implicitly or explicitly) and Oral apostolic tradition.

You comparison of Catholics to Mormons is very weak. I used to witness to Mormons. The Mormons Prophet and hierarchy is in stark contrast to the Catholicism magisterium. Of coarse Joe Smith used the Catholic hierarchical structure of Priest, Bishops, and Deacons and transfered then to his own made up denomination when he founded in in the 1800's. We Catholics do not teach that the same thing about the magistium. The Mormons claim to have prophet that can make new public revelation. The Catholics say that all public revelation has ended with the death of St. John. The Pope never gives new public revelation he only can infallibly define already existing public revelation that is found in scripture and Aposotlic tradition.

No body said that protestants rely on the council of Trent. The Canon of the New Testament was formed and declared by the Catholic church way before Trent. It was first declared at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. by Pope Damasus I, then ratified again at other Catholic councils(Hippo 393, and Carthage 397). The point again that all protestants rely on a outside Catholic sources, the Catholic and papal decrees to even know about what the NT Canon is. So scripture alone(their own principle) could not even give them that. This fact not only disproves the false notion of sola scriptura but also shows how the Catholic magisteum is needed to come to a fuller understanding of Christian revelation. All protestants then are hypocrite's because the very church(Magisterium) and principle(Scripture and Tradition) that they deny is the principle they had to embrace to even know the NT to begin with. All protestants therefore kneel in humble obedience to the pope and councils when it comes to the NT Canon but not when it comes to other things like purgatory or the Immaculate Conception. That doesn't make any sense, It would be illogical for a protestant to beleive only when he wants to beleive or when He thinks its right. That is also why we now have over 25,000 different protestant denominations all splintering off form one another and all claiming the bible alone as truth but yet none can agree on what the bible alone truth is. Sola scriuptura? Its chaos. Is this how you really think Jesus intended his church, his bride, to function?

 

[Melethiel]

This thread was progressing very nicely. I'd ask everyone to stop with the one-liners, accusations, and potshots.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Originally Posted by thereselittleflower
Well, if you find it difficult to answer the question, we understand.

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

It seems to be a very difficult question for sola scripturists to answer as we have hundreds of responses without a clear answer unless the answer is 'we don't know'

And who is 'we'?

Those who are asking.

 

[LJSGM]

It seems to be a very difficult question for sola scripturists to answer as we have hundreds of responses without a clear answer unless the answer is 'we don't know'



Those who are asking.

Here, I'll interpret the scriptures for you... and I'll leave all that other garbage out.

 

[calluna]

It seems to be a very difficult question for sola scripturists to answer as we have hundreds of responses without a clear answer unless the answer is 'we don't know'

That's very odd, because we have had an apology for the question, and confirmation of the apology, moreover. It only needs the question to be asked in a manner that reflects the spirit of the apology for it to be acceptable as a valid one.

Those who are asking.

Just one, then. Not 'we', but 'I'.

 

[chestertonrules]

That's very odd, because we have had an apology for the question, and confirmation of the apology, moreover. It only needs the question to be asked in a manner that reflects the spirit of the apology for it to be acceptable as a valid one.

Just one, then. Not 'we', but 'I'.

In other words, you can't answer the question because it reveals the fatal flaw of your dogma.

Therefore, you attack the messenger and avoid the issue.

 

[calluna]

In other words, you can't answer the question because it reveals the fatal flaw of your dogma.

Possibly. Of the question is asked in a civil manner, then you can came to that conclusion. But Jack's offensive manner is not going to be tolerated by me, anyway.

Therefore, you attack the messenger and avoid the issue.

More likely it's Catholics doing that. All it needs is a simple question, but it seems you go to all this trouble to smear, instead.

 

[Melethiel]

Possibly. Of the question is asked in a civil manner, then you can came to that conclusion. But Jack's offensive manner is not going to be tolerated by me, anyway.

More likely it's Catholics doing that. All it needs is a simple question, but it seems you go to all this trouble to smear, instead.

Knock it off. Jack has been very polite in this thread, but I only see you determined to take it off topic. If you're offended, suck it up. Please stop derailing this thread.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

In other words, you can't answer the question because it reveals the fatal flaw of your dogma.

Therefore, you attack the messenger and avoid the issue.

What exactly is his "dogma"?

 

[thereselittleflower]

That's very odd, because we have had an apology for the question, and confirmation of the apology, moreover. It only needs the question to be asked in a manner that reflects the spirit of the apology for it to be acceptable as a valid one.

I find that the question has always been asked in a very polite way. The question is indeed valid and validly asked. Thank you for your concern.

Just one, then. Not 'we', but 'I'.

Actually, there are several of us asking the same basic question, so it 'we' is an appropriate response. Thank you again.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Originally Posted by thereselittleflower

So, it sounds like answering the OP's question should be fairly easy for you - who has the correct interprtetion of scripture among those who hold to sola scriptura?

Anyone?
​

Possibly not.

No-one?
​

Possibly.

Is this as clear as the answer can get to the question among sola scripturists?

 

[thereselittleflower]

The gospel is pretty simple. It is men that make it complicated, and cause confusion by adding to it.

OK . . .. then who among the sola scripturists has the right version of the Gospel?

 

[sunlover1]

Is this as clear as the answer can get to the question among sola scripturists?

I'd say that's the correct answer.
How can it be any different?
Scripture is truth, must be truth,
since it came from God Himself,
not by any private interpretation
of the men who spoke or penned it:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time&#65279;d&#65279; by the will of man:
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.​

http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=46819372#_ftn2d in old time: or, at any time


But we, according to Scripture, only know in part:

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child,
I thought&#65279; as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly&#65279;; but then face to face:
now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

So there is no denomination that sees more than God reveals.
But the emphasis in the Bible is on the love, not on who's
got more figured out, our goal is Jesus Christ (Love)
Jesus is the PERFECT theology:

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three;
but the greatest of these is charity.

That's how we can recognize who is of God:
They'll know we are Christians by our love,
one for another.
​

http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=46819372#_ftn3



http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=46819372#_ftnref3

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'd say that's the correct answer.
How can it be any different?
Scripture is truth, must be truth,
since it came from God Himself,
not by any private interpretation
of the men who spoke or penned it:

So there is no denomination that sees more than God reveals.
But the emphasis in the Bible is on the love, not on who's
got more figured out, our goal is Jesus Christ (Love)
Jesus is the PERFECT theology:​

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three;
but the greatest of these is charity. ​

That's how we can recognize who is of God:
They'll know we are Christians by our love,
one for another.​

Preach it Sista!!! I thirst for the Living Water that Jesus provides ​

Hebrews 7:12 For being changed/translated/metatiqemenhV<3346> (5746) the Priesthood, out of necessity also, of Law a change/translation/metaqesiV <3331> is becoming/ginetai <1096> (5736),​

Reve 21:6 And He said to me: "it-has-become/gegonen <1096> (5754). I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. I, to the one thirsting, shall be giving out of the spring of the water of the life gratuitously.​