Sola Scriptura and Interpreting the Bible Badly

Agreed, certainly the church can and has made mistakes.

However, when there are 17 passages of Holy Scripture that speak of a certain activity very negatively, I do not see how you can, with and credibility or honesty, not conclude that perhaps God doesn’t think its a particularly good idear? 

In any case, TRUTH IS TRUTH, and IF we are honest about the consequences of a particular activity you can clearly see why God has prohibited it, FOR OUR OWN GOOD.

God’s laws line up perfectly with natural consequences, so it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what is and isn’t “good” - just be observant and honest.

Interesting analogy, especially wrt the differing cohesion of the respective ‘expert’ communities

#1—Especially when Scripture repeatedly and expressly says *why* it’s bad and why Christians should not engage in it.  E.g., 1 Corinthians 6:18-19 ; Ephesians 5:3 ; Colossians 3:5-6 ; 1 Thessalonians 4:2-4.

There are around 2300 passages of Holy Scripture, with more severe and varied punishments than any other sin, which forbid speaking evil of others (possibly even in truth),  and it’s virtually impossible to do more than to strive to hold one’s self back from doing it, no matter how hard one tries. It’s best to at least try, however, though among sinners I’m the chief.

Actually Fr. Matt has made a case that Sola Scriptura isn’t exactly Sola Scriptura after all.

We need the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to tell us when we’re off the rails so that what we say Scripture means is consistent with God’s intent and not our own fanciful machinations.

This “deposit of the faith” or what we’d loosely call part of “Holy Tradition” is extremely important so our interpretation of Scripture fits with eternal truth as part of the whole rather than transient whims.

Bill2,

You are sounding so Orthodox is your statement.

Not really Bill2…since the church has been upended as often as the scientific communiy. Scripture, special revelation, rules the church and measures her just as natural revelation rules science and measure her.

I often think that all of this discussion about scripture misses the point that TEC has abandoned the historic creeds which are quite clear about what they say. TEC believes in more than one god, denies creation, the divinity of Jesus and down the line. While we are debating shell fish and two cloths, the creeds are being ignored. Not diminishing scripture but just sayin.

To be fair, I started out life as Presbyterian, was Lutheran for a while, and became Episcopal and now I’m ACNA, former AMiA after the whole Murphy thing-a-ma-jig.  Yes, I had studied Orthodoxy some and attend an OCA parish from time to time, especially during EO Lent, as well as studied Roman Catholicism, having read most of the CCC, but admittedly sometimes it makes my head hurt.

Having been around the ecumenical block, so to speak, the question has always come to my mind, “How do you avoid the knucklehead factor?” as we see so often in TEo.  Is there no star by which we can define true north so you can wind up in Jerusalem instead of Ulan Bator?  That’s the thing that makes me skeptical of the Protestant biblical ethos.  We all sort of agree Luther, Calvin, etc. are closer on the “big things” than TEo and much of LibProt-ism is with what we nominally define orthodox Christianity.  But how do we keep the cats herded without a “magisterium” or “tradition” that keeps things from spinning out of control?

There’s been alot of chatter here and elsewhere about the chaos inherent with all these local options, but that becomes a fundamental weakness throughout Protestantism.  Most here probably view TEo’s Biblical interpretation to be deeply flawed or down-right dishonest.  But how can we logically appeal to anything besides “I like this interpretation because it fits my view of the world.”?

Philosophically, what differentiates us from the revisionists (in one big way) is that we believe objective truth, that everything isn’t subject to “culture” or “context” or whatever.  I’m not taking anyone to task, and I apologize for the ramble, is we need to avoid falling into that same trap where everything becomes reduced to negotiable principles that lose any meaning. 

We use the Nicene Creed as touchstone of Tradition or Magisterium, that puts a fence around acceptable or unacceptable interpretation of Holy Writ, do we not?

“But how do we keep the cats herded without a “magisterium” or “tradition” that keeps things from spinning out of control?”

Well, a lot better than the magisterium manages, for the most part!

“But how can we logically appeal to anything besides “I like this interpretation because it fits my view of the world.”?”

Which is no different to: “I like this magisterium because it fits my view of the world”.  “Oral tradition” and the “magisterium” are both notorious for containing numberous contradictory and semi-contradictory things, which different partisan members of their churches can latch onto to help their particular cause. 

“Philosophically, what differentiates us from the revisionists (in one big way) is that we believe objective truth, that everything isn’t subject to “culture” or “context” or whatever.”

Precisely.  Which has nothing to do with a magisterium or oral tradition.  I think you are confusing the obectivity issue with wilful ignorance.  No fair-minded observer reading Scripture can argue that it permits homosexual “marriage”, but that doesn’t mean some people won’t vehemently assert that it does so. 

In the long run, truth always wins out.  Scripture is God-breathed and used by the Holy Spirit.  It is a two-edge sword and always ends up turning in the hand of those who try to misuse it, even though for a while they can seem invincible in their ignorance.

“We use the Nicene Creed as touchstone of Tradition or Magisterium, that puts a fence around acceptable or unacceptable interpretation of Holy Writ, do we not?”

No, it doesn’t help in that way, in the least.  Every liberal Anglican in the world devoutly and sincerely recites the Nicene Creed, every Sunday.  And they believe it, or at least, they believe what they think it means.  The Nicene Creed is very valuable, but of itself it provides no surer fence than the Scripture it summarises.

Hi Bill2

” Most here probably view TEo’s Biblical
interpretation to be deeply flawed or down-right dishonest. But how can we
logically appeal to anything besides “I like this interpretation because it
fits my view of the world.”?”

I think the answer to that is contained in the above analogy. Just as the natural world upends false theories and hypotheses…so scripture upends false theologies. It doesn’t take “appealing to my personal worldview” to demonstrate, for example, that the moon is not made of cheese. You merely need a telescope for that. In the same way that the cosmos is God’s natural revelation…so scripture is his special revelation. It is the objective measure of all worldviews and theologies.

The only explanation TEC needs to give is this (and no, its not the shellfish argument): We don’t stone ho’s anymore (John 8:11a).

Every liberal Anglican in the world devoutly and sincerely recites the Nicene Creed, every Sunday.  And they believe it, or at least, they believe what they think it means.

In some sense you are correct, in the sense that the hundreds of thousands of “Anglicans” in parts of the US, NZ and other places that have actually stopped using the Nicene Creed altogether are probably somewhere beyond “liberal” and arguably are not Anglican (in the sense outlined in the Quadrilateral, 39 Articles, BCP and other formularies). 
It is pretty common, however, for US Episcopalians to reject one or more elements of the Creed (starting with “Father”) or to openly admit that they say it because it is traditional to say it, or because it is pretty poetry, not because they actually believe it.  You might be surprised by the substantial number of Episcopalians who say the Creed every Sunday, but will tell you that Jesus is Joseph’s natural son, didn’t really die on the cross, but was taken down before death and nursed back to health in the tomb by Mary Magdalene.
What is worse, of course, is the substantial number of TEC bishops who say things like that.

Good point, tj.  I wasn’t aware that there were so many like that, so my comment was far too sweeping.  But still, there are many liberals who recite the Creed proudly, especially of the “affirming catholic” variety.

I suppose its the same process as happens with scripture - they start off by piously (and misleadingly) quoting it but end up rejecting it altogether, like the recent moves to expurgate the word ‘homosexuality’ from the ESV… :(

[post 7] Amen Kennedy+

[Below is from an earlier post—time limitations and all]
Aquinas appears to have essentially preceded the Reformational phrase “sola scriptura” in stating that Canonical Scripture Alone (or “sola canonica scriptura”) is a measure of faith. He repeats the point in Summa, quoting the same thought, though differently worded, from Augustine.

Aquinas:
“It should be noted that though many might write concerning Catholic truth, there is this difference that those who wrote the canonical Scripture, the Evangelists and Apostles, and the like, so constantly assert it that they leave no room for doubt. That is what he means when he says ‘we know his witness is true.’ Galatians 1:9, “If anyone preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be anathema!” The reason is that canonical Scripture alone (Latin “quia sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei”) is a measure of faith. Others however so wrote of the truth that they should not be believed save insofar as they say true things.” (Commentary on the Gospel of John 21)

And Aquinas states likewise on the authority of Scripture in doctrine (Summa Theologica Part 1; Question 1; Article 8; Reply 2):
...the Apostle says: “Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). Hence sacred doctrine makes use also of the authority of philosophers in those questions in which they were able to know the truth by natural reason, as Paul quotes a saying of Aratus: “As some also of your own poets said: For we are also His offspring” (Acts 17:28). Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): “Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning.”
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm

God Bless,
WA Scott