I don't get sola scriptura

[mackbrislawn]

Zirconia;8030347
Could you clarify? Of course a missionary would need to learn the local language to instruct the people. But why go to the further step of introducing literacy? Or are you saying that such a written language was ecclesiastical in nature, and had nothing to do with anyone else who might read it? In this connection, I find it interesting that St. Ulfililas
left out the book of Kings in the Visigothic translation, because he thought it was too warlike for the Visigoths. If it was only intended for the missionary, why would this matter?

Good point. I would say that introducing literacy to a new peoples was so that native bishops and priests could be ordained. The first missionaries would not be around forever, and would soon ordain natives into ecclesiastical positions, and they would need native translations to use in the liturgy. So, yes, in a way the written language would at first be ecclesiastical. Although a further motive would be to bring civilization in general to barbaric people. I can see then, why warlike scriptures might not be deemed appropriate for barbarians!

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of translating the Bible (or things such as the liturgy) into the vernacular? I know this has been a sore point before–I have heard plenty of times from the misinformed that the Church does not want people reading it. This can’t be true–and the Church obviously sees the Scripture as important (which was part of the point I was trying to make about all the time and effort the Church went to to make sure it was preserved and its information spread to others , especially in the Middle Ages). But if the risk of having an untaught person reading it is that high, are translations into the vernacular really a good thing?

I think the liturgy ought to be in the vernacular, as well as of course scripture reading.
Are translations into the vernacular a good thing? Well, that’s certainly a mixed bag! Of course such translations are necessary in order to bring scripture to different peoples. I guess this brings up the question of, what is scripture for? To whom does it belong? Does it belong to the individual to interpret individually? Or does it belong to the people, the church, collectively?

Historically, we can see that scripture always was collectively owned, by the people of God. In OT times, the people would gather at the synagogue to listen to scripture. It is doubtful if many families had their own copy of scripture. In NT, the same is true. The Christians would gather every week to celebrate the Eucharist, and to hear the memoirs of the apostles read to them.

Note that in each instance, scripture was an oral experience for the faithful. And a collective one as well. Everyone would be hearing scripture at the same time, not in isolation from each other. You can see how in this situration, the people would not be “untaught.” They would be familiar with the basic teachings from the beginning, and know the context everything should be in, because, after all, they were part of the people of God. They would know what the scripture meant and they would have teachers to explain it.

Not so with an untaught, ignorant individual who acquires scripture outside of this context. Such as an untaught person reading a Gideon bible. Could this be the type of situation 2Peter 3:16 is talking about? Peter seems to be saying that just having scripture is no guarantee you will understand it right, and to misunderstand it is a dangerous thing. Therefore, vernacular translations need to be used properly.

BTW, I’m probably not the best person to be defending SS on here, since I see much of value in and have benefited greatly from practices that are not explicitly included in the Bible. In fact, I am mainly trying to reconcile the idea that the Church could get along just fine with Tradition and without the Scriptures with the fact that it was the same Church that went to such heroic lengths (as in the Middle Ages) to preserve them.

My view is that scripture was part of total Tradition as well as the original oral teaching. So then, in guarding Tradition, the Church guarded and copied scripture as well.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I would say meaning and understanding.

You’re saying there is no meaning or understanding in the bible?

Some sayings and stories in one Gospel are told in another. So the Gospels themselves have redundancy. The Bible can be and is redundant. Furthermore if the Gospel is sufficient itself to understanding then the Epistles are redundant.

Yes, there is a certain amount of redundancy built into the bible to verify the things that are in it. There are things that Jesus did over and over that there is no need to put in the bible and that is what Jn.21:25 is talking about

For everything. No church does something different every week. All churches rely on some tradition of understanding to form their basis of beliefs. The traditional beliefs and customs of a denomination are what makes that a denomination.

My church relies on the bible.

The point is without someone to have interpreted the Bible from its original language you would have absolutely no way of knowing what it contains. You rely on a human interpreter. That interpreter might have already done the work but that does not change your dependence on him.

That job has been done for hundreds of year now. We really don’t need to depend on him any longer.

Luke 10:41 Jesus tells Martha that she is careful. Careful here does not mean avoiding mishap. It means she is full of care or anxious. If you just read the KJV you’d likely be puzzled or get the wrong idea.

Careful means full of care and means now just the same as it did in Jesus day.

Direct revelation would be perfect I think. Short of that humans being imperfect everything human is imperfect. God may have inspired the writers or literally dictated the Holy Scripture. But it is still received through imperfect human senses and mental faculties. Verbal and written communication will be imperfect to express the nature of God. Most people who read the Bible also read other people’s commentary on it. If reading it by yourself was sufficient then there would be no need for that commentary. For that matter there would be no need for teaching through preaching.

I thought we were talking of communication between us humans. Any way do you think that all the information we need for our salvation is contained in scripture (the bible)?

 

[exnihilo]

You’re saying there is no meaning or understanding in the bible?

Not all at. I’m just saying that this can exist outside of the Bible as well. This is sort of how in the US we have the constitution whose meaning is elucidated in case law and even promotional pamphlets like the Federalist Papers.

My church relies on the bible.

I’ll accept that. But my point is I doubt every week your worship service is entirely different. I’m quite sure that your services are generally the same week in and week out. No matter what church you go to Catholic or Protestant the church is based on traditions. For some churches the tradition can change. For some they say the tradition does not change but their full understanding does. But every church, once established, relies on tradition. It seems to me that anytime a church changes something a sizable group of people complain because they expect the traditions to continue.

That job has been done for hundreds of year now. We really don’t need to depend on him any longer.

I’m sorry but that is not correct. You absolutely depend on the quality of the translation. So you do rely on the works of a man. If that were not so why are they always coming up with new translations of the Bible in English?

Careful means full of care and means now just the same as it did in Jesus day.

Yes it does, but that is not the primary definition. The word can have two different meanings. How do you know which meaning is correct?

I thought we were talking of communication between us humans. Any way do you think that all the information we need for our salvation is contained in scripture (the bible)?

We are. And what I’m saying is that communication between humans will always be imperfect. Have you not experienced difficulty communicating with people in your life? Have you not found at times that you and another person were saying the same thing but the words you chose made you think, for a while, that you were saying entirely different things?

Yes, I think all the information we need for salvation is contained in the scripture. But by that I mean that scripture represents in words the ideas that are necessary for salvation. A misinterpretation of the words would mean that a person did not get the right idea from scripture and would therefore have incorrect ideas about salvation.

A question for you is if the Bible had never been translated from Latin, and you cant read Latin, would it be possible for you to be saved? I think so. That being the case having the scripture to read for yourself is not necessary for salvation. While scripture is important the ideas contained in scripture are far more important.

 

[patricius79]

This, from the recent joint Lutheran / Catholic document:

Jon

the extra-Biblical sentences and Scriptures you provided do not show that one can deduce logically from Scripture that, to quote you:

Scripture does not speak of an intermediate state/place for purgation

please give the Scriptures from which you deduce that “Scripture does not speak of on intermediate state/place for purgation”

i think your argument violates Sola Scriptura

 

[JonNC]

the information you provided does not give Scriptures from which one can deduce logically from Scripture that, to quote you:

please give the Scriptures from which you deduce that “Scripture does not speak of on intermediate state/place for purgation”

i think your argument violates Sola Scriptura

You asking me to produce a negative. Your asking me to show where it doesn’t say it.
If it doesn’t say it, it doesn’t say it. OTOH, can you show me where scripture - and I’m including the D-C’s - speaks of an intermediate state/place for purgation? If you can do that, and I deny it, then I’m being consistent with the practice of sola scriptura, or better said, my communion is not.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

To be complete, however, I reference again the document I did earlier. These are references used to support Purgatory.

1. The most important texts that have been cited to provide biblical support for purgatory, however, are 2 Macc. 12:39-45, 1 Cor. 3:10-15, and Mt. 12:32. Because of hermeneutical or interpretive difficulties, they deserve more extensive discussion.176
2. The first text, chronologically, is the deuterocanonical 2 Macc. 12:39-45. Some Jewish soldiers under the command of Judas Maccabeus bury their fallen comrades. They discover under their tunics “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia,” which means that these Jews were guilty of idolatry. The soldiers pray for their dead comrades, that their sin might be blotted out. Judas takes up a collection and presents a sin offering in Jerusalem. The author comments: “In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin.” Here we have undeniable reference to interventions by the living on behalf of the dead, specifically for purification and deliverance from sin. The significance of this text for the doctrinal status of belief in post-mortem purgation depends in part on the canonical authority of 2 Maccabees for our two traditions, a question that cannot be resolved here.177
3. The second text is 1 Cor. 3:10-15, where the imagery of fire has been of particular
   importance in the history of interpretation.178 In this text Paul is dealing with the problem that certain of the Corinthian Christians are aligning themselves with particular preachers (cf. 3:4-5; see also 1:11-12), creating factions within the community. Paul points out that he and Apollos are merely servants of God, so that they are “not anything” (3:7) in comparison to God, and there is no ground for Corinthian factionalism. Indeed, their work will be judged by God. Paul uses an architectural metaphor to make his point. Evangelists must exercise care in how they build upon the foundation of the church, which is Jesus Christ (3:11), for the work of each evangelist will be tested on the day of judgment. If the evangelist’s work has been of fine quality, symbolized by gold, silver, or precious stones — materials that will withstand a testing fire — the builder will receive a reward. If this work has been of poor quality, symbolized by wood, hay, and straw — materials that will be consumed in a testing fire — the reward will be lost,

Jon

 

[patricius79]

You asking me to produce a negative. Your asking me to show where it doesn’t say it.
If it doesn’t say it, it doesn’t say it.Jon

if Sola Scriptura means anything at all, it means that you must show everything you confess to be logically deduced from Scripture (or explicitly in Scripture)

obviously then we cannot confess:

“Scripture does not speak of on intermediate state/place for purgation”

unless that can be shown logically from Scripture

 

[JonNC]

=patricius79;8034312]if Sola Scriptura means anything at all, it means that you must show everything you confess to be logically deduced from Scripture (or explicitly in Scripture)

Not exactly, in the first place. It is “the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone,”
So sola scriptura is the practice by which the Church determines what is dogma, what is an article of faith.

obviously then we cannot confess:
“Scripture does not speak of on intermediate state/place for purgation”
unless that can be shown logically from Scripture

I can certainly say that, therefore, since it is not in scripture, it ought not be a doctrine (which is the purpose as stated above - setting doctrine) that binds the conscience of the believer. I can also say that it could be argued that the possibility exists, this intermediate state/place, since scripture does not speak to it, but I would not bind the conscience on a possibility.

Jon

 

[patricius79]

Not exactly, in the first place.

can you show that from Scripture (i.e. that my definition of SS–which I was given by another Protestant–is wrong?)

again, it appears that S.S. has no definite meaning but is related to various modern oral traditions

It is “the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone,”

can you show this from Scripture?

Scripture does not speak of on intermediate state/place for purgation

nobody has ever shown me that–as opposed to the patristic teaching about prayers for the dead and purgatory-- from the Scriptures

 

[JonNC]

=patricius79;8034700]can you show that from Scripture (i.e. that my definition of SS–which I was given by another Protestant–is wrong?)

I showed it from the Lutheran Confessions.

again, it appears that S.S. has no definite meaning but is related to various modern oral traditions

For Lutherans it certainly does have a definite meaning.

can you show this from Scripture?

No need to. It is a post-apostolic practice of the Church, not per se a doctrine.

nobody has ever shown me that–as opposed to the patristic teaching about prayers for the dead and purgatory-- from the Scriptures

Not sure what you mean. There’s nothing wrong with prayers for the dead. Again, we’re not talking about purgation or prayers from the dead (both scriptural), only the teaching of an intermediate state/place as a required article of faith.

Jon

 

[patricius79]

I showed it from the Lutheran Confessions.

For Lutherans it certainly does have a definite meaning.

No need to. It is a post-apostolic practice of the Church, not per se a doctrine.

Not sure what you mean. There’s nothing wrong with prayers for the dead. Again, we’re not talking about purgation or prayers from the dead (both scriptural), only the teaching of an intermediate state/place as a required article of faith.

Jon

this is really confusing. why are you appealing to the Lutheran Confessions (oral traditions)?

or how can one show from Scripture that the patristic doctrine of Purgatory is not Biblical?

No need to. It is a post-apostolic practice of the Church, not per se a doctrine.

how can one show that from Scripture?

 

[JonNC]

=patricius79;8034917]this is really confusing. why are you appealing to the Lutheran Confessions (oral traditions)?

Because that’s what Lutherans do. We accept the confessions as a right reflection of scripture, just like we do the creeds, and the first 7 councils.

or how can one show from Scripture that the patristic doctrine of Purgatory is not Biblical?

It isn’t there. And again, I’m not saying it isn’t possible.

how can one show that from Scripture?

Come now, what’s your point?

Jon

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Not all at. I’m just saying that this can exist outside of the Bible as well. This is sort of how in the US we have the constitution whose meaning is elucidated in case law and even promotional pamphlets like the Federalist Papers.

Wait a minute, we’re stating to get a little confusing here. My question was “What would be an example of a truth contained in tradition that is not in the bible” to which you replied “I would say meaning and understanding.”

According to this answer to my question you are saying that meaning and understanding are not in the bible.

I’ll accept that. But my point is I doubt every week your worship service is entirely different. I’m quite sure that your services are generally the same week in and week out. No matter what church you go to Catholic or Protestant the church is based on traditions. For some churches the tradition can change. For some they say the tradition does not change but their full understanding does. But every church, once established, relies on tradition. It seems to me that anytime a church changes something a sizable group of people complain because they expect the traditions to continue.

Ya, I don’t think tradition that sets the tone of the weekly liturgy is what is being talked about here. That would be tradition with a small case “t”. Tradition with a large case “T” would be tadition that is set as doctrine. At least that is my way of understanding it.

I’m sorry but that is not correct. You absolutely depend on the quality of the translation. So you do rely on the works of a man. If that were not so why are they always coming up with new translations of the Bible in English?

Ex, I think that you are confusing translation with interpretation. Translation is the converting of the text from one language to another. Interpretation is commentary on the meaning of the text. I have no interest in discussing the merits or lack of, for the various translations.

We are. And what I’m saying is that communication between humans will always be imperfect. Have you not experienced difficulty communicating with people in your life? Have you not found at times that you and another person were saying the same thing but the words you chose made you think, for a while, that you were saying entirely different things?

Ok, you said: Writing is an imperfect way of communicating an idea. To which I replied:
“What is a perfect way?” To which you replied: “Direct revelation would be perfect I think.”
Now I don’t think that humans ever have or ever will communicate by “Direct revelation”. So I can only assume you are talking about God communicating with man and not man with man.

Yes, I think all the information we need for salvation is contained in the scripture.

Therfore you believe in Sola Scriptura (SS)

But by that I mean that scripture represents in words the ideas that are necessary for salvation. A misinterpretation of the words would mean that a person did not get the right idea from scripture and would therefore have incorrect ideas about salvation.

Ok

A question for you is if the Bible had never been translated from Latin, and you cant read Latin, would it be possible for you to be saved? I think so.

Of coarse you cold be saved, but you would need the Gospel preached to you.

That being the case having the scripture to read for yourself is not necessary for salvation. While scripture is important the ideas contained in scripture are far more important.

Yes the ideas contained in scripture are very important, but those ideas are taken from the written word. The written word is I would say a waymark or reference point for the truth. As you have said human communication is imperfect, so we need the consistency that can only be found in the written word to bring us back to the way, the truth, and the life.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Richard Kastner;8037384]Wait a minute, we’re stating to get a little confusing here. My question was “What would be an example of a truth contained in tradition that is not in the bible” to which you replied “I would say meaning and understanding.”

What is meant is that meaning and understanding are found in tradition, ie, the right way to know the meaning of scripture is via tradition. Of course everyone has a tradition in which they understand scripture, whether they admit it or not. The trick is to have apostolic tradition as your guide to understanding.

According to this answer to my question you are saying that meaning and understanding are not in the bible.

In a sense this is right, meaning and understanding are not found in written documents, but in the human mind. Written things have no meaning in themselves, because it takes a mind to give them meaning. And what that meaning is will be determined by the prior biases and teaching in that mind. See 2Peter 3:16.

Therfore you believe in Sola Scriptura (SS)

The Catholic Church does not deny that all of revelation has been included in scripture, at least in a seed or incipient form. All the “material” is there, even if it needs to be unpacked. This is distinct from believing everything is in an easily understood form, or “formal” sufficiency. Again, 2Peter 3:16 definitely says it is not in an easily understood form. Even though these untaught people had scripture, that was not enough to guarantee they would understand it right. Peter says you need teaching prior to approaching scripture. What is that prior teaching? Apostolic tradition.

Yes the ideas contained in scripture are very important, but those ideas are taken from the written word.

This statement seems to be a tautology.

The written word is I would say a waymark or reference point for the truth. As you have said human communication is imperfect, so we need the consistency that can only be found in the written word to bring us back to the way, the truth, and the life.

I think it’s the other way around. After all, it is the meaning of the written word which is the very thing in dispute! Reliance on the written word alone is what is causing divisions and disunity. Since human communication is imperfect, and it is humans who read scripture, communication from scripture is also imperfect.

Therefore, the traditional understanding from the apostles is necessary, plus decisions from the church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

What is meant is that meaning and understanding are found in tradition, ie, the right way to know the meaning of scripture is via tradition. Of course everyone has a tradition in which they understand scripture, whether they admit it or not. The trick is to have apostolic tradition as your guide to understanding.

This sounds like you are saying that oral tradition of the Apostles is more reliable than the written word of God. Is that what you are saying?

In a sense this is right, meaning and understanding are not found in written documents, but in the human mind. Written things have no meaning in themselves, because it takes a mind to give them meaning. And what that meaning is will be determined by the prior biases and teaching in that mind. See 2Peter 3:16.

Excuse me mack, but this makes no sense at all, "Written things have no meaning in themselves? You’re kidding right? “And what that meaning is will be determined by the prior biases and teaching in that mind.” I’m assuming you mean the mind of the one doing the reading. This is just not true. Scripture was written down by men, but it is inspired by God. It’s meaning is set by God. Most scripture is not that hard to understand. What Peter is warning against is taking scripture that is more diffficult and WRESTING OR TWISTING it’s meaning into saying something God never intended for it to say.

2Tim.3
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Let me ask you mack, how can scripture be profitable, for doctrine, for reproof, (rebuke), for correction, for instruction in righteousness: if it does not meaning and understanding intrinsic in it?

The Catholic Church does not deny that all of revelation has been included in scripture, at least in a seed or incipient form. All the “material” is there, even if it needs to be unpacked. This is distinct from believing everything is in an easily understood form, or “formal” sufficiency. Again, 2Peter 3:16 definitely says it is not in an easily understood form. Even though these untaught people had scripture, that was not enough to guarantee they would understand it right. Peter says you need teaching prior to approaching scripture. What is that prior teaching? Apostolic tradition.

2Peter3
14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Again Peter is here warning us to not be decieved by the “unlearned and unstable” Which intentionally wrest or twist SOME HARD TO UNDERSTAND scriptures to say something that it was never intended to say. This does not say that all scripture is hard to understand.

This statement seems to be a tautology.

Ya, sorry.

I think it’s the other way around. After all, it is the meaning of the written word which is the very thing in dispute! Reliance on the written word alone is what is causing divisions and disunity. Since human communication is imperfect, and it is humans who read scripture, communication from scripture is also imperfect.

It is humans who READ scripture, COMMUNICATION FROM SCRIPTURE however is communication FROM God and as such is perfect. It is humans who are unwilling to submit to the Spirit of Almighty God that wrest scripture.

Therefore, the traditional understanding from the apostles is necessary, plus decisions from the church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Where do you find this “traditional understanding from the apostles”?

 

[exnihilo]

According to this answer to my question you are saying that meaning and understanding are not in the bible.

Meaning is expressed through words but it is not the words themselves.

Ya, I don’t think tradition that sets the tone of the weekly liturgy is what is being talked about here. That would be tradition with a small case “t”. Tradition with a large case “T” would be tadition that is set as doctrine. At least that is my way of understanding it.

My point was that every church has some tradition, even if it is a little ‘t’. But beyond that, every church I’m aware of has a doctrinal tradition as well. I know of no church that says believe what you want. Every church has some set of beliefs which it adheres to. And some of those ideas are assertions as to the meaning of certain scripture even if it is to conclude that you are not bound to the literal meaning.

Ex, I think that you are confusing translation with interpretation. Translation is the converting of the text from one language to another. Interpretation is commentary on the meaning of the text. I have no interest in discussing the merits or lack of, for the various translations.

I dont think these are distinct issues. In order to properly translate the translator must first interpret the meaning. If this were not so then we could simply have a computer program translate the Bible by replacing the ancient words with their English equivalent.

Ok, you said: Writing is an imperfect way of communicating an idea. To which I replied:
“What is a perfect way?” To which you replied: “Direct revelation would be perfect I think.”
Now I don’t think that humans ever have or ever will communicate by “Direct revelation”. So I can only assume you are talking about God communicating with man and not man with man.

Yes, only God could so communicate. Everything we humans do is imperfect.

Therfore you believe in Sola Scriptura (SS)

No, not as most people mean it.

Of coarse you cold be saved, but you would need the Gospel preached to you.

So Holy Scripture is not necessary to salvation. What is necessary is the ideas conveyed by them. And the ideas were first conveyed through words alone. The disciples did not have any text, they wrote the text.

Yes the ideas contained in scripture are very important, but those ideas are taken from the written word. The written word is I would say a waymark or reference point for the truth. As you have said human communication is imperfect, so we need the consistency that can only be found in the written word to bring us back to the way, the truth, and the life.

I wish I had your same optimism for the power of the scripture. But, given the wide disagreement as to its meaning it has been more of a jumping off point for many than a waymark.

 

[exnihilo]

This sounds like you are saying that oral tradition of the Apostles is more reliable than the written word of God. Is that what you are saying?

The scripture is reliably the Word of God. But as mackbrislawn explained meaning is something that occurs in the human mind. If there were no minds around nothing, not even words in a book, would have meaning. You need a mind to create something and a mind to interpret meaning.

Most scripture is not that hard to understand.

I’d like to agree with you. I certainly think some pretty plain scripture is incredibly contorted. I think that most people lack the mental faculties, the wisdom, the knowledge and quite possibly the spirit to properly understand scripture on their own. If one read the Old Testament with no assistance from explanations of history and a knowledge of culture you’d miss half the meaning.

Excuse me mack, but this makes no sense at all, "Written things have no meaning in themselves? You’re kidding right? “And what that meaning is will be determined by the prior biases and teaching in that mind.” I’m assuming you mean the mind of the one doing the reading. This is just not true. Scripture was written down by men, but it is inspired by God. It’s meaning is set by God. Most scripture is not that hard to understand.

Purpose, which is meaning, is something that is in the mind. You can write down your assertion of what your purpose is but still the true purpose only exists in the mind. I believe God to be truthful so I believe what purposes He has written in the Scripture are true, but purpose is not always given for each instruction or story.

I accept Scripture as being inspired by God. But of what assurance is there that the reader will get the proper meaning? Given that so many people get different meanings out of the Scripture what is the explanation for this?

Let me ask you mack, how can scripture be profitable, for doctrine, for reproof, (rebuke), for correction, for instruction in righteousness: if it does not meaning and understanding intrinsic in it?

This is true that Scripture is so profitable. But Scripture is also profitable, improperly interpreted, for false doctrine and acceptance of that which is morally bad. If that were not so then what explains the success of those who have different ideas about what the Scripture says?

It is humans who READ scripture, COMMUNICATION FROM SCRIPTURE however is communication FROM God and as such is perfect. It is humans who are unwilling to submit to the Spirit of Almighty God that wrest scripture.

But is God guaranteeing us to properly understand Scripture? If so how can so many people get so off track when reading Scripture?

Where do you find this “traditional understanding from the apostles”?

That is what I want to know. It seems that all churches assert they have that. Every church says what we believe are what the first Christians believed. Obviously not everyone can be right.

 

[mackbrislawn]

This sounds like you are saying that oral tradition of the Apostles is more reliable than the written word of God. Is that what you are saying?

You know, you’re right, that is what I’m saying! The oral tradition is understandable, but the meaning of the written word of God is always under dispute. The written word of God is of course reliable, but our personal interpretations of it are not.

Excuse me mack, but this makes no sense at all, "Written things have no meaning in themselves? You’re kidding right? “And what that meaning is will be determined by the prior biases and teaching in that mind.” I’m assuming you mean the mind of the one doing the reading. This is just not true. Scripture was written down by men, but it is inspired by God. It’s meaning is set by God. Most scripture is not that hard to understand. What Peter is warning against is taking scripture that is more diffficult and WRESTING OR TWISTING it’s meaning into saying something God never intended for it to say.

No, I’m not kidding. I’ll say it again, written things need a mind to read them and to decide what they mean. This is obvious because different minds when they read the same thing don’t always agree on what it means.

You’re right, scripture was inspired by God, but written down by men, in human language. And, since we have already agreed that human communication is imperfect, scripture, even though inspired, is nonetheless in human language, and hence can be understood imperfectly. We must realize that although God communicated directly to the evangelist who wrote scripture, the evangelist is communicating to us through human communication, via the imperfect means of language.

Yes, Peter is warning us that ignorant people can read scripture and twist its meaning. Now, here is the danger. What parts of scripture are the ones hard to understand? Could it be that the ones seemingly the most obvious in meaning are in reality the ones hardest to understand? A simple statement such as, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” on its surface seems easy to understand, but is it? Simple things are deceptive. The above simple statement is actually a shorthand for a lot more beneath it’s surface meaning. However, the untaught and ignorant will look only at the surface meaning and not know the true depth of meaning there. In consequence they will twist God’s words into something God did not intend to say.

Right, scripture’s meaning is set by God. Not by us. And, that is the problem, we humans want to set the meaning ourselves. So, how do we know God’s meaning? Through apostolic tradition, which was given by God.

2Tim.3
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Let me ask you mack, how can scripture be profitable, for doctrine, for reproof, (rebuke), for correction, for instruction in righteousness: if it does not meaning and understanding intrinsic in it?

Excellent question. These passages were written to Timothy, who had known the holy scriptures from childhood. You see, he had been steeped in the scriptures, taught in them, since being a kid. He was not among the untaught or ignorant that Peter speaks about! Timothy having been taught scripture all his life, and having been taught the gospel personally by Paul, was definitely not ignorant and unstable! Therefore, Timothy knew the intrinsic meaning of the scriptures.

Also, it is to be remembered, that the scriptures in question here are Old Testament scriptures. The Christian gospel tradition Timothy knew was taught to him by the apostle Paul, so Timothy also knew the apostolic tradition. So, when Paul wrote his letters, a person like Timothy would know what they meant, having already been steeped in apostolic tradition. He was not unlearned!!

Furthermore, Timothy was a man of God. Scripture is useful for a man of God, but not necessarily useful for someone else.

2Peter3
as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Again Peter is here warning us to not be decieved by the “unlearned and unstable” Which intentionally wrest or twist SOME HARD TO UNDERSTAND scriptures to say something that it was never intended to say. This does not say that all scripture is hard to understand.

Uh, no, Peter is not warning us not to be deceived by the 'unlearned and unstable." On the contrary, he is saying that the unlearned and unstable deceive themselves. It is a warning to those who are untaught in the apostolic tradition.

Of course, we should be wary too. Should we follow someone who is untaught in the tradition of the apostles, even though they may use scripture convincingly? We must not be unsteady.

No, I won’t say all of scripture is hard to understand. But, are we sure we know which parts are which? As I indicated above, the parts we think we understand may be the very parts we don’t.

Continued…

 

[mackbrislawn]

It is humans who READ scripture, COMMUNICATION FROM SCRIPTURE however is communication FROM God and as such is perfect. It is humans who are unwilling to submit to the Spirit of Almighty God that wrest scripture.

Right on.

Where do you find this “traditional understanding from the apostles”?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Meaning is expressed through words but it is not the words themselves.

I have no idea what this means?

My point was that every church has some tradition, even if it is a little ‘t’. But beyond that, every church I’m aware of has a doctrinal tradition as well. I know of no church that says believe what you want. Every church has some set of beliefs which it adheres to. And some of those ideas are assertions as to the meaning of certain scripture even if it is to conclude that you are not bound to the literal meaning.

My churches doctrinal tradition is based on the bible, the Word of God. Your churches doctrinal tradition appears to be the word of man. You don’t think there is somethin askew in this scenario?

I dont think these are distinct issues. In order to properly translate the translator must first interpret the meaning. If this were not so then we could simply have a computer program translate the Bible by replacing the ancient words with their English equivalent.

So you DO think that meaning and understanding are in the bible.

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
Ok, you said: Writing is an imperfect way of communicating an idea. To which I replied:
“What is a perfect way?” To which you replied: “Direct revelation would be perfect I think.”
Now I don’t think that humans ever have or ever will communicate by “Direct revelation”. So I can only assume you are talking about God communicating with man and not man with man.

To which you reply

Yes, only God could so communicate. Everything we humans do is imperfect.

So you ARE talking about communication with God? You really need to make up your mind the points you want to discuss. It makes it really difficult when you keep flipping.

You said

Yes, I think all the information we need for salvation is contained in the scripture.

Now you say

No, not as most people mean it.

The statement you made above is almost word for word what my definition of SS is. So if you don’t subscribe to this definition of SS you need to provide your definition.

So Holy Scripture is not necessary to salvation. What is necessary is the ideas conveyed by them. And the ideas were first conveyed through words alone. The disciples did not have any text, they wrote the text.

This is all irrelevant to the fact that all the information we need for our salvation is contained in scripture.

I wish I had your same optimism for the power of the scripture. But, given the wide disagreement as to its meaning it has been more of a jumping off point for many than a waymark.

What about you ex? you have stated

Yes, I think all the information we need for salvation is contained in the scripture.

Should this not be a source of rejoicing that you can indeed be assurred of your salvation in Christ Jesus and that you can find out all about it in the bible?