Translations And Sola Scriptura

[thessalonian]

First, let me start out with my understanding of what Sola Scriptura means. Of course, from my experience, SS has a range of meaning.

My Understanding of SS

1) All that is neccessary for our salvation is contained in scripture.

2) The scriptures are the sole rule of our faith regarding faith and morals.

How's that.

Now the question. I started a thread on the word rememberence. Cmotherofpirl pointed out that the word used in the greek was anamnesis. Now the problem is there is not English equivelant for this word. There are multiple words that cover a part of the meaning but none that capture the full meaning.

Another example is at the end of John's Gospel, chapter 21, Jesus does the threefold do you love me sceen with Peter. My understanding is that Jesus asks Peter "do you agape me" the first two times and then "do you philleo me" the last time, while Peter answers him "you know I philleo you Lord". Agape is a deeper love. The love we need to have for God is my understanding. There are many other examples, such as 2 Thes 2:15 I have seen paradosis tranlated teaching, truth, tradition. Each seems to me are partially true but likely don't capture the full meaning.

Now here is the problem.

A parital meaning would not neccessarily render a verse untrue but certain does not capture all of God's intended word also. So it seems to me that the fullness of God's word when one has an English translation (or any other non-greek/hebrew version) is quite clearly not the whole word of God. i.e The word of God = Scritpure + ????. Now as Catholicis this presents no real problem because we believe that the Word of God = Scripture (written Tradition) + Oral Tradition. If a translation contains less of the word of God, the Oral Tradition portion makes up for it. St. Irenaus said "if we had not the scripture we would still have the Church". In other words the word of God is contained in the Church. I wonder how you non-catholic sola scripturists handle this difficulty. Do you have the complete word of God in an English translation. Are the deeper meanings important or is some of God's originial word unimportant? I look forward to your thoughts.

God bless.

Thess.

[thessalonian]

bump

[dUSt]

Excellent point.

I'm also curious to know how this problem is handled by those who are separated from the Church.

[ironmonk]

I think that's the first time that I have ever heard this point brought up....

Great point!!!

God Bless,

ironmonk

[thessalonian]

I am truly dissapointed that you sola scripturists haven't given this much thought. Let's give it the old college try or I'll have to post it on other boards.

Blessings

[jasJis]

Wow, Thess.

A great post. It seems so obvious the way you've explained it. I'm going to use your example. Great job.

What also comes to mind when I discuss with non-Catholic Bible scholars is their constance referall to 'proper exigesis'. Oral Tradition is this proper exigesis done at the time of Christ and carried through. With your example of the deeper meaning of certain words, this explains quite well the Tradition of proper context and understanding that the Church preserves and carries through to all generations.

Thanks!

[thessalonian]

Wow, Thess.

A great post.  It seems so obvious the way you've explained it.  I'm going to use your example.  Great job.

What also comes to mind when I discuss with non-Catholic Bible scholars is their constance referall to 'proper exigesis'.  Oral Tradition is this proper exigesis done at the time of Christ and carried through.  With your example of the deeper meaning of certain words, this explains quite well the Tradition of proper context and understanding that the Church preserves and carries through to all generations.

Thanks!

Glad to help. Glad to be used.

Blessings

[mustbenothing]

(thessalonian) My Understanding of SS

1) All that is neccessary for our salvation is contained in scripture.

2) The scriptures are the sole rule of our faith regarding faith and morals.

(Me) The doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches that the Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the man of God in our post-apostolic age. As one clarification, this does not mean that we do not have subsidiary standards. The Reformers all wrote extensive creeds and confessions.

(thessalonian) Now the question. I started a thread on the word rememberence. Cmotherofpirl pointed out that the word used in the greek was anamnesis. Now the problem is there is not English equivelant for this word. There are multiple words that cover a part of the meaning but none that capture the full meaning.

(Me) This simply means that our English translations of the Bible are not entirely accurate. That does not mean, however, that they do not adequately preserve the meaning. We believe that only the original manuscripts were directly breathed out by God, not copies or translations. Therefore, copies and translations are to be called Scripture -- and thus the doctrine of Sola Scriptura apply to them -- insofar as they accurately reflect the original document.

Additionally, saying that we need fallible guides to better understand the infallible Scripture -- say, a Greek lexicon -- does not make the guides infallible.

(thessalonian) I am truly dissapointed that you sola scripturists haven't given this much thought. Let's give it the old college try or I'll have to post it on other boards.

(Me) It had only been two days at this point, and two days over Labor Day weekend. I'm sure that most of us were with our families for the holiday (as was I).

[dUSt]

thessalonian) My Understanding of SS

1) All that is neccessary for our salvation is contained in scripture.

2) The scriptures are the sole rule of our faith regarding faith and morals.

(Me) The doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches that the Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the man of God in our post-apostolic age.  As one clarification, this does not mean that we do not have subsidiary standards.  The Reformers all wrote extensive creeds and confessions.

Okay, so now we move away from the Bible and onto "subsidiary standards". So we both have the Bible, I have the Church, and you have the Reformers.

Sounds good to me.

(Me) This simply means that our English translations of the Bible are not entirely accurate.  That does not mean, however, that they do not adequately preserve the meaning.

Woa. You argue that we can adequately get the meaning of a word not accurately translated.

I guess there's no arguing that. That's on you bro.

Additionally, saying that we need fallible guides to better understand the infallible Scripture -- say, a Greek lexicon -- does not make the guides infallible.

That's like saying that we could properly learn brain surgery with only a medical textbook, and a teacher prone to not interpreting that textbook correctly. No thanks.

We believe that only the original manuscripts were directly breathed out by God, not copies or translations.  Therefore, copies and translations are to be called Scripture -- and thus the doctrine of Sola Scriptura apply to them -- insofar as they accurately reflect the original document.

I think the point was that they don't always reflect the original document correctly. It's useless to have a teaching authority prone to error, as anybody can read scripture incorrectly--you just go back to where you started. Infallible scripture with only fallible ways to interpret it.

God bless.

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) The doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches that the Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the man of God in our post-apostolic age. As one clarification, this does not mean that we do not have subsidiary standards. The Reformers all wrote extensive creeds and confessions.

(dUSt) Okay, so now we move away from the Bible and onto "subsidiary standards". So we both have the Bible, I have the Church, and you have the Reformers.

Sounds good to me.

(Me) The Reformers are not my secondary standard. The Westminster Confession of Faith, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (Austin, TX), and the Presbyterian Church in America hold secondary authority over me, along with (and at a more fundamental level of authority) the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Definition of Chalcedon, and the Athanasian Creed.

I would maintain that the Church is not your subsidiary or secondary standard, but, rather, it is your primary standard. For, do you not base the proper interpretation of the Bible and Tradition on the Church? Therefore, it is your primary standard. And, inDouche, the fact that you view her as infallible means that she cannot be secondary to anything.

(Previous) This simply means that our English translations of the Bible are not entirely accurate. That does not mean, however, that they do not adequately preserve the meaning.

(dUSt) Woa. You argue that we can adequately get the meaning of a word not accurately translated.

I guess there's no arguing that. That's on you bro.

(Me) I'm talking about adequately preserving the message in most of the text, not each individual word. Sorry for the ambiguity.

(Previous) Additionally, saying that we need fallible guides to better understand the infallible Scripture -- say, a Greek lexicon -- does not make the guides infallible.

(dUSt) That's like saying that we could properly learn brain surgery with only a medical textbook, and a teacher prone to not interpreting that textbook correctly. No thanks.

(Me) Modern Greek lexicons are not prone to error.

(Previous) We believe that only the original manuscripts were directly breathed out by God, not copies or translations. Therefore, copies and translations are to be called Scripture -- and thus the doctrine of Sola Scriptura apply to them -- insofar as they accurately reflect the original document.

(dUSt) I think the point was that they don't always reflect the original document correctly. It's useless to have a teaching authority prone to error, as anybody can read scripture incorrectly--you just go back to where you started. Infallible scripture with only fallible ways to interpret it.

(Me) Infallible Church teaching with only fallible ways to interpret it -- that's probably why people are still arguing over how to interpret Trent or Vatican II.

[dUSt]

May the peace of Christ be with you mustbenothing. Let's pray that the Holy Spirit may continue to guide us in our understanding of His message.

The Reformers are not my secondary standard.  The Westminster Confession of Faith, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (Austin, TX), and the Presbyterian Church in America hold secondary authority over me, along with (and at a more fundamental level of authority) the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Definition of Chalcedon, and the Athanasian Creed.

Okay--so you have all that stuff--I have the Church.

Still sounds good to me.

I would maintain that the Church is not your subsidiary or secondary standard, but, rather, it is your primary standard.  For, do you not base the proper interpretation of the Bible and Tradition on the Church?

No more than you base your proper interpretation of the Bible and Tradition on the things you mentioned above.

Therefore, it is your primary standard.  And, inDouche, the fact that you view her as infallible means that she cannot be secondary to anything.

Like I stated previously, there is no primary or secondary, as the Church, the Bible, Tradition, Apostolic teaching, councils, etc, ALL make up the Word of God. There's no need for a primary or secondary teacher because they all need eachother to be properly understood.

I'm talking about adequately preserving the message in most of the text, not each individual word.  Sorry for the ambiguity.

That's where I have problems. I agree that most of the things you believe contain the truth. It's the other parts where I believe you are mislead.

Modern Greek lexicons are not prone to error.

I don't know what a modern Greek lexicon is.

Infallible Church teaching with only fallible ways to interpret it -- that's probably why people are still arguing over how to interpret Trent or Vatican II.

Sure, people are arguing, but the Church isn't.

God bless.

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) I would maintain that the Church is not your subsidiary or secondary standard, but, rather, it is your primary standard. For, do you not base the proper interpretation of the Bible and Tradition on the Church?

(dUSt) No more than you base your proper interpretation of the Bible and Tradition on the things you mentioned above.

(Me) But I consider those things to be fallible, thus able to be corrected by the Scripture. For instance, there are a couple of places where the Westminster Confession of Faith has actually been amended, because we are so sure it was wrong. The Roman Catholic Church, however, can never be wrong. Scripture and Tradition must bend to her teaching, rather than she bending to their teaching.

(Previous) Therefore, it is your primary standard. And, inDouche, the fact that you view her as infallible means that she cannot be secondary to anything.

(dUSt) Like I stated previously, there is no primary or secondary, as the Church, the Bible, Tradition, Apostolic teaching, councils, etc, ALL make up the Word of God. There's no need for a primary or secondary teacher because they all need eachother to be properly understood.

(Me) Consider, for a minute, the number of debates I've had on this board. With the exception of you, each time I have presented any argument from the Bible or Fathers, when pressed, the response was ultimately, "But the Church teaches otherwise." In other words, not matter how much it may look like the Bible or Tradition contradicts the Church, the meaning of the Bible and Tradition must be altered in order to agree with the Church. The Church, then, holds the ultimate epistemological position.

(Previous) Modern Greek lexicons are not prone to error.

(dUSt) I don't know what a modern Greek lexicon is.

(Me) More or less, dictionaries. Translation aids/standards.

(Previous) Infallible Church teaching with only fallible ways to interpret it -- that's probably why people are still arguing over how to interpret Trent or Vatican II.

(dUSt) Sure, people are arguing, but the Church isn't.

(Me) It is my understanding (on the basis of a chat with an Catholic Church seminarian) that there is still disagreement over the meaning of Trent, or even Vatican II, within the Catholic Church.