The Sola Scriptura Contradiction

[Cathoholic]

It is impossible to divorce written Tradition (Sacred Scripture) from oral Tradition.

An obvious example of this is common sense and the fact that the ancient Hebrew language was all consonants.

It was a consonantal written language.

So for example if English were a consonantal language I could give you just one word.

“mn”.

Without some sort of oral tradition, you could not decipher the word.

I COULD be . . .

Man
Men
Amen
Many
etc.

You cannot know without an oral tradition to fill in the proverbial blanks.

It is impossible to divorce Sacred Scripture from oral Tradition.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[thomat65]

by what authority do you interpret Scripture

Why is any authority at all required to interpret Scripture?

If a monkey with a keyboard happens to randomly type the phrase “Isaiah 43:10 means that the count of divine beings is one”, then hasn’t that randomly-typing-monkey produced something correct? And if the wind randomly blows that typewritten paper into the lap of a polytheist, wouldn’t he be accountable to God if he ignores it?

And even if an angel from heaven came and preached (a la Galatians 1:8) “Isaiah 43:10 means the count of divine beings is two”, then anyone at all can safely and immediately reject it without thought. In fact, anyone who doesn’t reject it would then be accountable to God. So authority isn’t even necessarily required to recognize the truthfulness of an interpretation.

It seems evident that no authority is required in either case because scripture, like all communication, was written with an original intent. The original intent of a passage is not created through an organization’s reading of it, neither can meaning be instilled into a passage. Instead, the scripture, like any other form of communication, communicates a preformed intent and meaning.

The weight of any form of communication is the weight of its author, so the weight of scripture is the weight of the Author. And all a Christian has to do is to follow the words of Christ and ignore everything else, like John 10:27 says they are able to do.

Now, it does take some skill to correctly determine the original intent, and further effort to correctly apply the ancient intent to a modern scenario. But skill and effort are not the same as authority. And the validation and judge of that determination and that application is their correctness, not a stamp of approval from a trusted authority.

I think the more interesting question is: how will Christians recognize correct interpretations, and what is the correct method of interpretation?

 

[catholicray]

I think the more interesting question is: how will Christians recognize correct interpretations, and what is the correct method of interpretation?

I appreciate your response and what you said here is THE issue at hand. You also said the meaning of Scripture is the intent of its’ author. The Primary author of Scripture is God.

How can you ever know the intent of God?

I think the more interesting question is: how will Christians recognize correct interpretations, and what is the correct method of interpretation?

What is the correct method of understanding the intent of God?

I say only God understands His intent thus men guided by the Holy Spirit is the only method by which man can possess such knowledge.

 

[Emeraldlady]

It seems evident that no authority is required in either case because scripture, like all communication, was written with an original intent. The original intent of a passage is not created through an organization’s reading of it, neither can meaning be instilled into a passage. Instead, the scripture, like any other form of communication, communicates a preformed intent and meaning.

But the canon of Scripture didn’t fall from the sky fully formed. It was the product of the study, theology and prayer of men of God who were recognised as leaders in their day. There were many other essays and treatises around which were subject to the same study but were excluded from the canon by these same men of God. Our faith in the bible is completely due to the authority we recognised in the men of God who decided on the canon.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

It seems evident that no authority is required in either case because scripture, like all communication, was written with an original intent. The original intent of a passage is not created through an organization’s reading of it, neither can meaning be instilled into a passage. Instead, the scripture, like any other form of communication, communicates a preformed intent and meaning.

If this is true, then how would you explain the wildly different interpretations that Catholics and some Protestants have of Two of the inarguably most important teachings that Jesus spoke on? (Baptism and Eucharist). The opposite seems evident to me, we obviously do need an authoritative interpreter.

 

[thomat65]

How can you ever know the intent of God? […] What is the correct method of understanding the intent of God? I say only God understands His intent thus men guided by the Holy Spirit is the only method by which man can possess such knowledge.

I’d prefer not to venture too deep into an answer for two reasons. First, I’m still learning, and I only know enough about interpreting scripture to say I cannot give a complete answer at this time.

Second, I’m not sure that being able to name and describe a good method is going to answer the question “is authority required for interpreting scripture”. In fact, I’ll assert that a little more strongly: I think authority is not relevant because of the reasoning in my previous post.

My point is this: the correctness of an interpretation is totally independent of the method by which it was derived.

To look at that another way: if you and I use two different methods of interpreting scripture, and if we both arrive at the same correct interpretation, then both of our interpretations are correct, being the same. And neither method was necessary for producing the correct result, since for both methods a different method produced the same correct result. And considering the authority of the individuals involved was not necessary, since neither method was necessary.

I hope you don’t mind me sidestepping your questions

---

But the canon of Scripture didn’t fall from the sky fully formed

Correct.

Our faith in the bible is completely due to the authority we recognised in the men of God who decided on the canon

Is that truly the Catholic position? Or is that just your personal position? CCC 10x seem to indicate that the Catholic Church has a different position than this.

Speaking for myself, it is reassuring that the authors are high quality men ordained by God. But that is merely reassurance. I would say the main reason for my personal faith in the bible is that the original passages were God’s personal revelation from the moment they were penned. And God’s word cannot fail–what God says is very trustworthy, whether it is recognized or rejected by men.

---

how would you explain the wildly different interpretations that Catholics and some Protestants have of [Baptism and Eucharist]

The simplest explanation is that at least some people have arrived at incorrect interpretations. I’m not trying to be trite… that seems like the reason.

Keep in mind that members of the Catholic Church are not in 100% agreement with one another. Do you suppose that means the Catholic Church’s methods of interpretation are incorrect?

 

[whatistrue]

the correctness of an interpretation

That’s the entire issue in my opinion. When 6 people can interpret the same passage and each come to a different conclusion, who gets to say which one, if any, is correct? And that sort of thing happens all the time, or there would still only be one Church.

 

[thomat65]

who gets to say which one, if any, is correct?

Please don’t be annoyed by this reply, but: anyone who has the correct interpretation will be correct in saying they have the correct interpretation, since they have the correct interpretation. Even the least authorized person.

Do you mean to ask “how can anyone determine the correctness of an interpretation?”

Edit: I see that you did say “That’s the entire issue in my opinion”. So feel free to disregard my ending question… it’s redundant.

At this point I desire to say nothing beyond “authority is not required to correctly interpret scripture”. I believe “how can anyone determine the correctness of an interpretation” would make an excellent separate thread.

 

[Bon_Croix]

Wisdom and Knowledge are gifts of the Holy Spirit, yet, as Paul says, we are all granted different gifts. So, just b/c two are baptized does not mean that they both have the gift of infallible knowledge and wisdom of scripture.

 

[catholicray]

At this point I desire to say nothing beyond “authority is not required to correctly interpret scripture”

I politely disagree. If we embrace your position then we are utterly lost because there are mountains of competing methods that produce mountains of competing results.

This error of your reasoning is shown by asking why, if there is no authority, should we say that the appropriate approach to Scripture is faith?

Keep in mind that members of the Catholic Church are not in 100% agreement with one another.

It’s not a requirement of the faith. We understand fully that the Church is on a voyage to understanding. The Church possesses the faith absolutely and it is a gift she continues to open. That is to say we are absolutely sure of what we are sure of and the gift is not fully unpacked, yet we do absolutely have it.

 

[whatistrue]

Classic example of “duck, dodge, and weave”. Nothing further to say.

 

[thomat65]

Classic example of “duck, dodge, and weave”

I was afraid I would come across that way. I’m trying to stay focused on my thesis: “authority isn’t necessary”. I’ve tried to show how “how do we know what is right” is a different question that doesn’t undermine my thesis. To that end I’ve been dodging and shortcutting as much as possible, but I’ve been trying not to dodge the core point.

---

why, if there is no authority, should we say that the appropriate approach to Scripture is faith?

I’m not sure I follow. Please don’t take this as dodging (besides, technically I didn’t say that, so I feel free to ask): why is faith the appropriate approach to scripture, and what does that mean?

 

[catholicray]

By the way nice to meet you and thank you for a respectful conversation.

I mean to say why shouldn’t we approach Scripture as a skeptic or an atheist in our approach? Why is their interpretation any less valid from your perspective?

 

[thomat65]

By the way nice to meet you and thank you for a respectful conversation.

Thank you! It’s a pleasure meeting you as well. I find communication to be very difficult (especially written, and especially on the internet!), so I appreciate that.

Why is their interpretation any less valid from your perspective?

Hmm. I think a skeptic or an atheist would be able to form a valid interpretation. But I haven’t thought about this much. I do know that when even an atheist quotes scripture to me, I pay close attention. What breaks if skeptics and atheists are able to correctly interpret?

 

[catholicray]

What breaks if skeptics and atheists are able to correctly interpret?

I understand what you’re say here so allow me one further inquiry. By what method would you conclude the atheist who says the Bible is a mythology ultimately, is wrong?

 

[thomat65]

By what method would you conclude the atheist who says the Bible is a mythology ultimately, is wrong?

Two methods: defensively and offensively.

Taking the defensive: I trust (have faith) that the following is true, and the atheist has failed to prove this is internally inconsistent:

1. God exists
2. God has revealed himself in a few ways
3. One way is scripture
4. Various attributes of God come into play. Etc

Also, I might try to go on the offensive and demonstrate why their brand of atheism is internally inconsistent.

 

[Juvenal]

It’s just wild to listen to a Scholar like James White make such a massive blunder.

I’m unsure if this is a wild blunder on his part, or if he just doesn’t have the chops.

James White means well in his ministry, I’m sure. These folks always do. And unquestionably, he’s an engaging writer, That said, his scholarly activities are indefensible. After earning a perfectly acceptable MA from Fuller, he added three diploma mill degrees, including two doctorates. When challenged on this, rather than disavowing the degrees, he doubled down, and is now invoking a farcical PhD candidacy in South Africa.

White graduated with a BA from Grand Canyon University (formerly known as Grand Canyon College) and an MA from Fuller Theological Seminary. He earned ThM, ThD and DMin degrees from Columbia Evangelical Seminary (formerly Faraston Theological Seminary) an unaccredited online school.[7][8][9] In March 2017,[10] White announced that he is working on an accredited PhD at North-West University in Potchefstroom, South Africa in the field of textual criticism.[11][12]

 

[BlueMaxx]

Why not go straight to the source…

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

 

[catholicray]

Two methods: defensively and offensively.

Taking the defensive: I trust (have faith) that the following is true, and the atheist has failed to prove this is internally inconsistent:

1. God exists
2. God has revealed himself in a few ways
3. One way is scripture
4. Various attributes of God come into play. Etc

Also, I might try to go on the offensive and demonstrate why their brand of atheism is internally inconsistent.

And why is your method valid?

 

[thomat65]

And why is your method valid?

I’m having a hard time anticipating where this is going. Could you help me connect the dots between this, the question “why, if there is no authority, should we say that the appropriate approach to Scripture is faith”, and the error you previously spotted in my reasoning?

To answer this question, though: my method of rejecting the atheist’s conclusion might be incorrect.

Something is correct inasmuch as it accords with the mind of God (by definition, I think). But it is sometimes difficult to correctly divine God’s mind, and in this specific case I’d be hard pressed to bring scriptures to bear. Well, maybe I could connect it in this way: by definition, something is true if it is true, Christ is true (John 14:6), Christ’s thoughts are true, etc. That’s kind of a stretch, I’d have to think about it more.