Unto What Shall We Liken the Roman Hermeneutic?

This is a very warped view of the Catholic position, so much so that it parts brass rags with reality on just about every level.

I find it an apt description of Rome's peculiar positions.

I'd also like to mention, the Bible was not assembled into a complete volume until the 400's. [...]

So what? The Old Testament was compiled long before that, and the Torah is ancient. How one interprets them would follow precisely into how one interprets the latter work... Or YHWH is schizophrenic... Or the latter work is not of YHWH.

Sola Scriptura rolled around much later. What were people supposed to do until then?

Whats more, sola scriptura is not in the bible. Its taking a doctrine that is not in the bible that states everything not in the bible is invalid. Wouldn't that make sola scriptura invalid?

It is your definition of sola-scriptura that is invalid. Sola-scriptura does not mean 'If it isn't in the Bible, then it doesn't exist.' That would be 'solo-scriptura'.

Sola-scriptura, simply put, means that the Bible retains a primacy over any doctrine, creed, or tradition. It does not negate any doctrine, creed, or tradition unless that thing changes (explicitly, or by inference) the meaning and nature of the Scripture.

And well it should have that primacy. After all, the Bible is a series of contracts, which is why it was written down. What efficacy can a contract have if either party to the contract can simply claim a verbal change of any kind? And more odd than that, the party of the second part, Man, who has no real binding upon himself within the contracts, thinks HE is the one that can change them... YHWH, the party of the first part, who has bound Himself to the words therein, has not changed a thing. He will do as He is contractually bound to do, and to the very letter thereof. To do otherwise would negate His Word, and open Himself to claims that He is not in fact, in perfect control. and therefore, not God.

In that context, sola-scriptura is of the highest sort of necessity, by the very nature of the thing.

You better throw out that catechism and get a new one.

http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=salvation&s=SS

They do not point to Rabbanical decrees at any time.

In fact, to my knowledge, every_single_instance of departure is a rail AGAINST the traditions and decrees of the rabbis. Never (that I can think of) is there an instance of correction against the Word of God or the clear interpretation thereof. It is the 'added to and the taken away' that are always on point. And that is done, always, by tradition.

I think you’ve set up a straw man. I never said that Scripture has instances of correction “against the Word of God” and I never said that there are scriptural instances of correction of “clear interpretations” thereof. What I said was that there is no Scriptural basis for claiming that scripture is always easy to understand. There are MANY instances of correction against the COMMON understanding — a common understanding that also happens to be wrong. Furthermore, to read Scripture in a purely literal way is to get it wrong, in many instances. “Literal” does not always equal “Correct” does not always equal “Clear”.

I think you’ve set up a straw man. I never said that Scripture has instances of correction “against the Word of God” and I never said that there are scriptural instances of correction of “clear interpretations” thereof.

If I did, it was unintentional - The comment was there to buttress my point, which was that to the very letter (IIRC) what the Apostles and Christ Himeslf railed against were the additions and traditions that added to or took away from the Scriptures themselves. Thereby, It isn't a matter of interpreting, or these, who are more worthy than any of us, would have spent their time instructing upon the interpretations rather than fixing what the authorities of the day scrambled up with their traditions. One could, I submit, extrapolate the very same as being relevant today, and throughout the entirety of history.

What I said was that there is no Scriptural basis for claiming that scripture is always easy to understand.

True to the degree that one supposes only one true meaning to a thing, and to the extent of the definition of 'always easy'. The Bible is explicit in it's declaration that there is a simple message, easy to understand, and a more difficult and nuanced message that is harder to digest - the 'milk' and the 'meat' as it were. So at the very least, there are two levels of understanding. I would submit that the levels are infinite and profound - and we are to continually be about our work of ferreting out every bit of it. That in fact, is the main reason I find the Word to be inspired - so simple and yet so very complex.

But in effect, for the purpose of this conversation, if relying upon the 'milk', it IS easy to understand.

And one can also fall back to the commandment that the Torah was to be read in it's entirety before the entire assembly every seven years - in part so that those children who had never heard the Word of YHWH would hear it. The clear implication in that is that a child of seven years is able to get something from the Torah... Since the Author of the Book (through the inspiration of His agents) is YHWH Himself, one should be able to apply that same principle to the whole of the Book.

There are MANY instances of correction against the COMMON understanding — a common understanding that also happens to be wrong.

I would like an example of same.

Furthermore, to read Scripture in a purely literal way is to get it wrong, in many instances. “Literal” does not always equal “Correct” does not always equal “Clear”.

As I am among the most fundamental of fundamentalists, I have knocked down that particular straw man many times. Even among my peers, there is only a preference toward literalism, not a perfect literalism. But even so, a direct reading is usually the best, and one can quite often derive an accurate interpretation thereby. Certainly there is little need for the monstrous interpretive bodies that are currently institutionalized (not pointing at y'all only, but I AM pointing at y'all).

The Roman church *loves* to point out the differences between the protestant denominations, but refuses to credit the similarities, which are vast by comparison. and some of our more congregational brethren have deliberative bodies which are nothing more than an handful of elders... And still they wind up believing pretty much the same things.