Solascripture

[francisdesales]

When I use Sola Scriptura - I mean that the Bible alone is the benchmark, rule, standard, by which all doctrine and beliefs should be judged/measured.

What I believe should have at it's root - Scripture. That is where it should be grounded - not in the council of men, but in the council of the Written Word.

Fair enough. We also place our roots in Scriptures. But the key word is "solo". Alone. I think anyone who has read the bible can verify that people can take different meanings from the same passage. The Scriptures explicitly tell us this in Acts regarding Phillip and the Ethiopean who need someone to explain the Scriptures to him. We need teachers to explain things. Eph 4 tells us that God gave us teachers and preachers. There are a number of other sections of Scriptures that tell us this.

Yes, use the Bible. But it is important to look at the intent of Scriptures. This can only be done through a reliable teacher or witness to the faith. Jesus has given us an authoritative body to do just that - to teach ALL that Jesus has taught, whether explicit or implied...

Regards

 

[Guest]

Fair enough. We also place our roots in Scriptures. But the key word is "solo". Alone. I think anyone who has read the bible can verify that people can take different meanings from the same passage. The Scriptures explicitly tell us this in Acts regarding Phillip and the Ethiopean who need someone to explain the Scriptures to him. We need teachers to explain things. Eph 4 tells us that God gave us teachers and preachers. There are a number of other sections of Scriptures that tell us this.

Yes, use the Bible. But it is important to look at the intent of Scriptures. This can only be done through a reliable teacher or witness to the faith. Jesus has given us an authoritative body to do just that - to teach ALL that Jesus has taught, whether explicit or implied...

Regards

The Ethipean needed someone to explain, because he was not a believer. The Holy Spirit did not dwell in him at that point. And yes, we need pastors and teachers - however what they preach and what they teach needs to be grounded in the Word. Pastors and teachers are guides - however, it is important that they are using the 'map' - and if they are not, we should be making sure that they are.

 

[francisdesales]

The Ethipean needed someone to explain, because he was not a believer. The Holy Spirit did not dwell in him at that point. And yes, we need pastors and teachers - however what they preach and what they teach needs to be grounded in the Word. Pastors and teachers are guides - however, it is important that they are using the 'map' - and if they are not, we should be making sure that they are.

I agree. But to what level does a teaching have to be "grounded" in Scripture? I see a lot of spiritual reading of the Bible by the Church Fathers, and it is very profound stuff that opens a lot of doors. But how "grounded" would you consider the spiritualization of passages?

Secondly, how does a reader know the intent of a passage? Is the writer meaning a metaphor or literally - such as "unless you eat my flesh, you shall not have life within you"? We realize the INTENT of that passage was to be taken literally BECAUSE of the teachers who explained it to the first Christians SAID so. But reading that passage OUTSIDE of this "intent" leads a reader to think this might be a metaphor.

See where I am going with this? Our faith is grounded in Scripture, no doubt. EVERYTHING that we believe dogmatically is found in Scriptures. Purgatory. The sacrifice of the Mass, the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, intercessionary prayers from saints in heaven, and so forth. However, our paradigm when approaching the Bible differs, thus, the different interpretations. This is why Sola Scriptura CANNOT be the intent of God.

Regards

 

[Guest]

I agree. But to what level does a teaching have to be "grounded" in Scripture? I see a lot of spiritual reading of the Bible by the Church Fathers, and it is very profound stuff that opens a lot of doors. But how "grounded" would you consider the spiritualization of passages?

Secondly, how does a reader know the intent of a passage? Is the writer meaning a metaphor or literally - such as "unless you eat my flesh, you shall not have life within you"? We realize the INTENT of that passage was to be taken literally BECAUSE of the teachers who explained it to the first Christians SAID so. But reading that passage OUTSIDE of this "intent" leads a reader to think this might be a metaphor.

See where I am going with this? Our faith is grounded in Scripture, no doubt. EVERYTHING that we believe dogmatically is found in Scriptures. Purgatory. The sacrifice of the Mass, the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, intercessionary prayers from saints in heaven, and so forth. However, our paradigm when approaching the Bible differs, thus, the different interpretations. This is why Sola Scriptura CANNOT be the intent of God.

Regards

Ultimately, there can only be one correct meaning. Truth is not multi-faceted. Truth cannot have multiple meanings, because then it stops being truth and becomes opinion.

Forgive me, but I am not going to discuss or debate the dogmas that your brought up - hopefully your intent was not to bait someone into a drawn out discussion on a side topic of real presence, prayers to 'saints', etc etc.

Scripture, while God inspired, is still a book with rules of grammar, puncuation, etc etc. When one reads the Scripture - it is clear what is to be literal and not. I would contend that there are not multiple layers of truth in Scripture - rather we learn more and more as we read and study.

 

[Heidi]

why does your church have seminaries,sunday school, bible study ,if the bible is so easy to understand. as you say all you have to do is pray to the Holy Spirit and WAMO you know everything

Because most people don't read the bible. Those classes are to get people into the bible.

Paul is clearly saying that the man with the Spirit does understand the bible. That means that those not born again of the Holy Spirit have to ask those who are born again what the bible means. So that's is exactly what most catholics are missing. Most of them are not born again or they would have no problem believing and understanding the bible. But they do have a problem understanding the bible, as they admit. So instead, they believe the pope's take on the bible rather than the words in the bible themselves. Ands that is why the Catholics disagree with Jesus all day long, but they never, I repeat, never disagree with the pope.

 

[francisdesales]

But they [Catholics] do have a problem understanding the bible, as they admit. So instead, they believe the pope's take on the bible rather than the words in the bible themselves. Ands that is why the Catholics disagree with Jesus all day long, but they never, I repeat, never disagree with the pope.

With all do respect, you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Does every Catholic agree with the Pope's stance on contraception? How about the ritual of the Sacred Liturgy? Get real.

Can you put aside your bitterness and nonsense notions and come to the table and speak without any prejudice? And answer me where does the Bible tell us that it is the only rule of faith?

I would venture to say that YOU don't understand the Bible very well, since you cannot provide a verse, ONE verse that tells us this fundamental belief that you toss around.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Ultimately, there can only be one correct meaning. Truth is not multi-faceted. Truth cannot have multiple meanings, because then it stops being truth and becomes opinion.

Forgive me, but I am not going to discuss or debate the dogmas that your brought up - hopefully your intent was not to bait someone into a drawn out discussion on a side topic of real presence, prayers to 'saints', etc etc.

Scripture, while God inspired, is still a book with rules of grammar, puncuation, etc etc. When one reads the Scripture - it is clear what is to be literal and not. I would contend that there are not multiple layers of truth in Scripture - rather we learn more and more as we read and study.

You have correctly judged my post in that I do not mean to debate those other dogmas, as you call them. My point was to tell you that one billion people read John 6 and see a literal interpretation and millions of other people see it as metaphor. It's not the punctuation, but rather, the mindset we approach the Bible with. It is NOT clear what is literal. Now, I take you to Genesis one and two. Do we take the creation story as literal? Many devout readers of the Scripture do not read it as literal. People 1500 years ago did not take it literally, although many did. And Job? How about Jonah? Do we take Revelation literally? Some do and others do not. Again, the Bible does not interpret for itself.

Again, my point is not to debate specific notions of Scriptures, but the fact that Scripture does not interpret itself. It is NOT clear what the Bible INTENDS without a living person to tell us or interpret with us.

Regards

 

[Heidi]

Fair enough. We also place our roots in Scriptures. But the key word is "solo". Alone. I think anyone who has read the bible can verify that people can take different meanings from the same passage. The Scriptures explicitly tell us this in Acts regarding Phillip and the Ethiopean who need someone to explain the Scriptures to him. We need teachers to explain things. Eph 4 tells us that God gave us teachers and preachers. There are a number of other sections of Scriptures that tell us this.

Yes, use the Bible. But it is important to look at the intent of Scriptures. This can only be done through a reliable teacher or witness to the faith. Jesus has given us an authoritative body to do just that - to teach ALL that Jesus has taught, whether explicit or implied...

Regards

So again, if I interpret your first sentence to say: "That's not fair. We don't place our roots in scripture" would that be a fair interpretation of your words? Could I then pass along those words of yours and say that you said them? :o Why/why not?

 

[Guest]

You have correctly judged my post in that I do not mean to debate those other dogmas, as you call them. My point was to tell you that one billion people read John 6 and see a literal interpretation and millions of other people see it as metaphor. It's not the punctuation, but rather, the mindset we approach the Bible with. It is NOT clear what is literal. Now, I take you to Genesis one and two. Do we take the creation story as literal? Many devout readers of the Scripture do not read it as literal. People 1500 years ago did not take it literally, although many did. And Job? How about Jonah? Do we take Revelation literally? Some do and others do not. Again, the Bible does not interpret for itself.

Again, my point is not to debate specific notions of Scriptures, but the fact that Scripture does not interpret itself. It is NOT clear what the Bible INTENDS without a living person to tell us or interpret with us.

Regards

If the Bible is not clear - what is the point of it?

The point of the Bible is to point us to Christ. WHat is unclear about that?

 

[Heidi]

If the Bible is not clear - what is the point of it?

The point of the Bible is to point us to Christ. WHat is unclear about that?

The catholics are merely saying that they don't have the indwelling Holy Spirit because Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 2:14 that it's the man without the Spirit who doesn't understand God. So they confirm that they're not born again by their admission that they don't udnerstand the bible. ;-)

 

[Guest]

The catholics are merely saying that they don't have the indwelling Holy Spirit because Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 2:14 that it's the man without the Spirit who doesn't understand God. So they confirm that they're not born again by their admission that they don't udnerstand the bible. ;-)

To be perfect honest, are there parts of the Bible that you do not understand Heidi? Seriously, Revelations isn't the easiest to read and understand!

While it is true that without the Holy Spirit's guidance, much is left unknown.

I can't help but wonder if there hasn't been a soft conditioning of sorts - if you are told enough times that the true authority is the church, and to allow the church to interpret for your, and the 'reverence' of the priests - the laity in the pews might begin to believe that they cannot understand the Scriptures.

 

[biblecatholic]

The catholics are merely saying that they don't have the indwelling Holy Spirit because Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 2:14 that it's the man without the Spirit who doesn't understand God. So they confirm that they're not born again by their admission that they don't udnerstand the bible. ;-)

lol. its so nice of you to misrepresent what we are saying.

as ive seen on this forum there are different interpretations even on sola scriptura. i understand the bible to the best of my ability at this moment. when i learn more i will understand more. as with you . i am as full with the Holy Spirit as i am empty of myself and sin. could you explain to me a little deeper since you are full of the Holy Spirit and understand the bible why do you need to learn more if you already understand everything. why do you send your minister to seminary?

 

[biblecatholic]

I can't help but wonder if there hasn't been a soft conditioning of sorts - if you are told enough times that the true authority is the church, and to allow the church to interpret for your, and the 'reverence' of the priests - the laity in the pews might begin to believe that they cannot understand the Scriptures.

?? dont you have reverence for the president,the usa(im sure you've said the pledge which demonstraights reverence), your pastor, michael jordan? we understand the bible what we're saying is that you cant say the bible interprets itself, because it does not say so. outside of catholicism and orthodoxy it seems as if everyone believes that he himself is the infallible interpreter. now who is the infallible interpreter everyone disagrees. tradition is the lense that we read the bible, if your baptist you see in the scriptures OSAS if your catholic you see in the scriptures that you could walk away from Jesus. each denomination looks at the scriptures through a tradition i think it is not accurate to say there has been a soft conditioning. we dont believe in the bible alone. nowhere in the scriptures does it say this nor does it say that the scriptures are the FINAL authority(you cant contradict it) it actually says the opposite
matt 18:17 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

it is clear that if there is a conflict we take it to the church. it does not say take it to the bible. the bible is truth but then men interpret and mess it up but as catholics our faith tells us as we look through the bible and see the infallible teaching of the church instead of everyone self interpreting and thus causing many different church that all believe the bible alone but all teach something different. i am only addressing this so you know why we say church is our guide to the bible not every person on there own. we can self interpret but we cant contradict we can build upon though

also everytime in the new testament when they mention scripture they're talking about the old testament. the new testament is some of the oral tradition put down in a book that must be taken with the entire word of God

 

[Guest]

Scripture can have but one meaning for it to be truth.

Oh - and no, I do not hold reverence for the president, and once I knew better - I stopped saying the pledge as well, I respect my pastor - but I do not revere him, and Jordan - well, never much for basketball.

 

[francisdesales]

If the Bible is not clear - what is the point of it?

The point of the Bible is to point us to Christ. WHat is unclear about that?

If the Bible is so crystal clear to anyone, why is their a multi-million dollar industry that prints books to help interpret the Bible? Yes, the Bible is supposed to point us to Christ. However, even in the bible, we see that people do not flock to Christ EVEN WHEN they have the Scriptures in front of them - the Jews...

The Bible ITSELF says it is not easy to understand...

our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:15,16

Peter wrote this to the Romans. I would like you to focus on the results of improper interpretation:
...leads...to their own destruction.

Mighty strong words. God has said that improper interpretation leads to one's destruction.

Some people like to gloss over issues. Others are so sure of their own opinions, that they will not listen to anything that may compromise that opinion, even if it makes sense. I can't say. But I can say that interpretation of the Bible is paramount. Fortunately, God left us a means.

The Scripture is not self-explanatory. As much as some people would like to think that in this day and age of American independence and do-it-yourselfism, that is not the mindset of when the Scriptures were written. I have repeated this time and time again, and will continue to repeat it.

Did God leave behind an authoritative body of men with the power to bind and loosen, or did He leave behind a book to be passed out to all men throughout the world?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Scripture can have but one meaning for it to be truth.

That is not true. There are various levels of depth in theology. Each layer can be true in of itself.

Scriptures have a literal sense. This is one level.
Scriptures can have a moral sense. This is another level.
Scriptures can have a spiritual sense. This is another level.
And finally, there is an anagogical (eschatological) sense.

God has given us a wonderful book that has so many layers of revelation bound up inside of each verse. We know this when we pray with our Bibles. We know this when we meditate on the writings and discover another meaning that does not contradict the original or literal sense, but is another level.

An example would be a reference to Jerusalem. Well, there is the literal sense of the earthly city in the OT. However, Christians have seen within these same verses an anagogical sense that has discovered another layer that shows Jerusalem refering to our home in heaven.

Regards

 

[Heidi]

That is not true. There are various levels of depth in theology. Each layer can be true in of itself.

Scriptures have a literal sense. This is one level.
Scriptures can have a moral sense. This is another level.
Scriptures can have a spiritual sense. This is another level.
And finally, there is an anagogical (eschatological) sense.

God has given us a wonderful book that has so many layers of revelation bound up inside of each verse. We know this when we pray with our Bibles. We know this when we meditate on the writings and discover another meaning that does not contradict the original or literal sense, but is another level.

An example would be a reference to Jerusalem. Well, there is the literal sense of the earthly city in the OT. However, Christians have seen within these same verses an anagogical sense that has discovered another layer that shows Jerusalem refering to our home in heaven.

Regards

There are many different truths in each scriptural verse. But one thing that is not there; opposite meanings. And you still haven't answered my question of whether or not I can change your words and claim that my interpretation is correct. So can I cahnge your words and claim that my interpretation is correct? How would you feel if I passed on the opposite meaning that you said? :o So how do you think God feels when the Catholics claim that Mary was a virgin all her life when God's words says she wasn't? or don't the Catholics care what God thinks? :o Or perhaps the catholics just don't know who God is and think he's the pope. But that's what happens when people call anyone on earth their Holy Father. They begin to think that that person is as infallible as God is which is precisely why Jesus tells us not to do it. So the catholics are proving Christ right once again. /b] ;-)

 

[biblecatholic]

Scripture can have but one meaning for it to be truth.

Oh - and no, I do not hold reverence for the president, and once I knew better - I stopped saying the pledge as well, I respect my pastor - but I do not revere him, and Jordan - well, never much for basketball.

2nd part of your answer.
fair enough.. you are consistent with your argument... but do you think revering someone is the same as worshiping God?


scripture is true and many verses have more than one meaning.none contradict if we know the literal meaning(what the author meant) many times since we're not first century people idoms are not picked up in the bible because there not how we in the 21century dont talk like that.

 

[biblecatholic]

How would you feel if I passed on the opposite meaning that you said?

you do do this to us and it doesnt feel good

So how do you think God feels when the Catholics claim that Mary was a virgin all her life when God's words says she wasn't?

ill post this again for you ....[color=red[size=150]]untill/till....it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. in fact, if the modern sense is forced on the bible some ridiculous meanings result.

"Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). i guess she had children after she was dead?

Deut. 34:6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.
But no one has known since that day either.[/color][/size:af560]

or don't the Catholics care what God thinks? :o Or perhaps the catholics just don't know who God is and think he's the pope. But that's what happens when people call anyone on earth their Holy Father. They begin to think that that person is as infallible as God is which is precisely why Jesus tells us not to do it. So the catholics are proving Christ right once again. /b] ;-)

you cant be serious.... it would be nice if you could stop dancing around the issues. you dont take the bible at its word in[color=red:af560] john 6 53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 5[/color]

if you are a literary interpreter,if that is the standard that you personally interpret scripture you must be consistent and accept the eucharist. but you are not consistent so we see how you rely on your personal private interpretation

 

[Guest]

2 Samuel 6:23 "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death"

I believe your quotation used the word "until the day of her death."

Either way the meaning is the same - She had NO children. In other words from the time she could have children to the time of her death - there were no children. She had NO children.

This is basic reading comphrension.

Deut 34:6 "And he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor; but no man knows his burial place to this day."

Again - very simple - Noone knows the burial place. Since then till now - noone knows.

This is not applying "modern" language - it is merely understanding the words and grammar as written.

Yes, I believe there is a difference between RESPECT and REVERENCE. I believe that worship/reverence is left for God.