Objections to Sola Scriptura?

[Xeno.of.athens]

Which is not a demonstration of the Bible's insufficiency, only of man's inability to agree on what it actually teaches, some of the divine mind seeming contrary to human "logic" and, therefore, repugnant.

At the risk or repeating myself, your line of argument lands us in total darkness because none of us can properly interpret the holy scriptures. We're such sinful and contrary beings. That being the case I wonder why you think that sola scriptura is true and something taught in the bible since your line of argument admits that your own sinfulness and contrary nature prohibits you from understanding the holy scriptures.

Honestly if sin prevents people from understanding the scriptures and presumably the Holy Spirit is the only one who can enlighten them so that they can have a correct understanding of the scriptures then how do we account for the thousands of independent churches and dozens of denominations? The Holy Spirit isn't teaching them all these contrary views, so there must be a lot of sinful ignoring of the Spirit's enlightenment. And if that is so then we're right back where I started, aren't we?

 

[Clare73]

It cannot possibly be a "misappropriation". The bible exists in its current form because the Church decided what that form is.

Let's not confuse the Church, which is all the born again, with a specific denomination.

The Bible exists in its current form because the early Christians decided what form it is.

The Catholic denomination does not have a monopoly on the church; i.e., those who are born again.

The Bible is the result of the testimony of the Holy Spirit to Christians of that time identifying the written words of the Holy Spirit.
It's about Christianity and Christians, not a denomination.

All those books of the bible are the books accepted over time. One of the criteria used in deciding the books of the canon was that they could not contradict the teachings of the Church - the Traditions of the Church.

Those would have been the teachings held in Christendom as received from the letters of the apostles to various churches, which were the standard by which writings were judged.

Not to mention a characteristic style, power, majesty and purity, which are the earmarks of the Holy Spirit, and found in no other writings of mankind, which those Christians possessing that same Holy Spirit were able to identify by the testimony of the Holy Spirit in their hearts.

And keeping in mind the Magisterium of the Catholic denomination got it Biblically wrong regarding justification (righteousness) by faith apart from faith's works (Romans 3:21, Romans 3:28), which is why some Christians broke away from the denomination in order to secure freedom of conscience to embrace all Biblical teaching.

They were good Bereans. . .they searched the Scriptures, not tradition.

 

[HTacianas]

Let's not confuse the Church, which is all the born again, with a specific denomination.

The Bible exists in its current form because the early Christians decided what form it is.

The Catholic denomination does not have a monopoly on the church; i.e., those who are born again.

The Bible is the result of the testimony of the Holy Spirit to Christians of that time identifying the written words of the Holy Spirit.
It's about Christianity and Christians, not a denomination.

Those would have been the teachings held in Christendom as received from the letters of the apostles to various churches, which were the standard by which writings were judged.

Not to mention a characteristic style, power, majesty and purity, which are the earmarks of the Holy Spirit, and found in no other writings of mankind, which those Christians possessing that same Holy Spirit were able to identify by the testimony of the Holy Spirit in their hearts.

And keeping in mind the Magisterium of the Catholic denomination got it Biblically wrong regarding justification (righteousness) by faith apart from faith's works (Romans 3:21, Romans 3:28), which is why some Christians broke away from the denomination in order to be able to embrace all Biblical teaching.

As someone who is not Catholic, and has never broken away from the Catholic Church, I can tell you that what you are saying isn't right. Holy Synods of Bishops -the successors to the apostles- established the Christian canon some three hundred years after the times of the apostles.

And you are mis-reading Romans 3:21 and 3:28 by looking at them through the lens of your tradition. You are allowing your tradition to interpret scripture. It's just that simple.

 

[Clare73]

If the Bible is a plain book, how do you explain the fact that many Christians and denominations disagree with you on some rather important issues?
(A) They are all stupid readers.
(B) They are all a pack of rebels
(C) They are not even real Christians.

Are you opting for A? B? C?

How about D?. . .fallen corrupt human nature which wars with the Spirit.

 

[Clare73]

The ones in Theosis are led entirely by the Holy Spirit and so are the only ones who can interpret properly. That is why there are so many interpretations these days -
nobody left in Theosis

Where do we find "theosis" in the NT?

 

[Clare73]

Partially led but as they are not holy ie sinless, not fully.

Sinless?

Humans can be "sinless" this side of the resurrection?
Are you sure about that?

"If we claim to be sinless (without sin), we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."
"If we claim we have not sinned, we make God out to be a liar and his word has no place in us."
(1 John 1:8, 1 John 1:10)

 

[BBAS 64]

Okay, I see. So holy scripture is perfect and crystal clear but we're all a bunch of idiots who cannot understand the crystal clarity of the holy scriptures and that explains why there are thousands of independent churches and dozens of denominations. Okay, that all makes no sense whatever if you want to tell me that sola scripture is the one true way of reading the bible, because you and I are both not competent to interpret scripture anyway, being sinful and all, so we simply cannot comment, right?

Good Day, Xeno

Perfect... yes it is the only (God-breathed) "thing we have".

Thousands hardly We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations| National Catholic Register (ncregister.com)

You really should stop conflating things that are unrelated.

Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with the reading or the interpretation of the bible.. se my early post defining Sola Scriptura.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Good Day, Xeno

Perfect... yes it is the only (God-breathed) "thing we have".

Thousands hardly We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations| National Catholic Register (ncregister.com)

You really should stop conflating things that are unrelated.

Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with the reading or the interpretation of the bible.. se my early post defining Sola Scriptura.

In Him,

Bill

I wrote "there are thousands of independent churches". I did not write "thousands of denominations. Please read what I wrote rather than what suits a quick and superficial reply.

 

[Clare73]

At the risk or repeating myself, your line of argument lands us in total darkness because
none of us can properly interpret the holy scriptures.

Nope. . .

The problem is not understanding. . .the problem is accepting/believing what one finds objectionable.

It can be demonstrated what the Scriptures actually state.
The main problem is one of setting Scripture against itself, instead of understanding it in harmony with itself.

Because of the objectionableness of NT teaching to the human notions of some, they choose to set Scripture against itself in order to deny such teaching, rather than choosing to interpret it in agreement with itself, which agreement puts them face-to-face with that to which they personally object and will not receive/believe.

It's not complicated. . .the God of the Scriptures doesn't fit into their human notions, so they deny its stated meaning understood in harmony with all Scripture.

 

[Clare73]

As someone who is not Catholic, and has never broken away from the Catholic Church, I can tell you that what you are saying isn't right. Holy Synods of Bishops -the successors to the apostles- established the Christian canon some three hundred years after the times of the apostles.

And you are mis-reading Romans 3:21 and 3:28 by looking at them through the lens of your tradition. You are allowing your tradition to interpret scripture. It's just that simple.

Feel free to Biblically demonstrate your assertion regarding Romans 3:21, 28.

I look forward to examining it.

 

[bmjackson]

Sinless?

Humans can be "sinless" this side of the resurrection?
Are you sure about that?

"If we claim to be sinless (without sin), we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."
"If we claim we have not sinned, we make God out to be a liar and his word has no place in us."
(1 John 1:8, 1 John 1:10)

Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe: 1Thess 2:10

 

[BBAS 64]

I wrote "there are thousands of independent churches". I did not write "thousands of denominations. Please read what I wrote rather than what suits a quick and superficial reply.

Good day, Xeno

My bad...

Another topic for sure but I agree all Churches are independent, even those churches with-in the 241 Roman denominations.

In Him,

Bill

 

[HTacianas]

Feel free to Biblically demonstrate your assertion regarding Romans 3:21, 28.

Let's take a look.

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Who is it that is teaching we should perform "the deeds of the law"?

 

[JAL]

How about D?. . .fallen corrupt human nature which wars with the Spirit.

Because that leads to a catch-22 with no escape, as I mentioned to another poster:
(1) I need to understand the bible to learn how to war against the sinful nature.
(2) Woops I'm stuck. I can't understand the Bible because that same "fallen corrupt human nature" (your words) impedes me.

 

[Clare73]

Because that leads to a catch-22 with no escape, as I mentioned to another poster:
(1) I need to understand the bible to learn how to war against the sinful nature.
(2) Woops I'm stuck. I can't understand the Bible because that same "fallen corrupt human nature" (your words) impedes me.

That's what the indwelling Holy Spirit assists with.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Nope. . .

The problem is not understanding. . .the problem is believing what one finds objectionable.

It can be demonstrated what the Scriptures actually state.
The main problem is one of setting Scripture against itself, instead of understanding it in harmony with itself.

Because of the objectionableness of NT teaching to the human notions of some, they choose to set Scripture against itself in order to deny such teaching, rather than choosing to interpret it in agreement with itself, which agreement puts them face-to-face with that to which they personally object and will not receive/believe.

It's not complicated. . .the God of the Scriptures doesn't fit into their human notions.

That's all rather irrelevant to the proposition that I put in my previous posts.

The fundamental issue is not what one can believe or what one can invent as an attribute of holy scripture - specifically, that it is consistent, infallible, clear, and easily understood, as you appear to imply in your reply - the fundamental issue is that the actual interpretation of holy scripture and the consequent formation of denominations and independent churches as a result of interpreting, clearly indicates that no groups can come to a consistent position on doctrine that everyone else is willing to accept.

If sola scriptura is "the truth" then why is it not clearly enunciated as a doctrine in holy scriptures? If it is true that holy scripture is clear and understandable then why do so many honest hearted sincere Christians disagree so heatedly about what the bible teaches?

It is not a sound defense of these claimed truths (sola scriptura, and the perspicuity of the scriptures) to assert that sinful people will fail to interpret properly because who is not sinful and therefore inclined to faulty interpretations? And since one must conclude that all are sinful and prone to poor interpretations, as your replies suggest, then why ought anyone accept sola scriptura when we know that the majority of Christians reject it? It is one of many doctrines that some accept and many reject. That you personally accept sola scriptura does not mean it is true for all people, it is not true for me, for example. So we are back at the beginning. Why all those dozens of denominations and thousands of independent churches if sola scriptura is true and scripture is also clear (perspicuity of scripture)?

 

[JAL]

That's what the indwelling Holy Spirit assists with.

How can you be sure of that doctrinal belief? And sure of how to activate Him? You just said that the sinful nature impedes understanding of doctrine and thus keeps our beliefs fallible/tentative.

Again, catch-22.

 

[eleos1954]

The born again are the church, the bride, and as his bride (Revelation 21:9-14), it is the body of Christ, being the two-in-one-flesh of the marital union (Ephesians 5:31-32).

Indeed

Which church—that is, which denomination of Christianity—is the “true church”? Which church is the one that God loves and cherishes and died for? Which church is His bride?

The answer is that no visible church or denomination is the true church, because the bride of Christ is not an institution, but is instead a spiritual entity made up of those who have by grace through faith been brought into a close, intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8–9).

Those people, no matter which building, denomination, or country they happen to be in, constitute the true church.

And AMEN ... thank you Jesus!

 

[BBAS 64]

How can you be sure of that doctrinal belief? And sure of how to activate Him? You just said that the sinful nature impedes understanding of doctrine and thus keeps our beliefs fallible/tentative.

Again, catch-22.

Good Day, Jal

Not a catch 22 unregenerate man can not understand no catch at all "can not"

You do not active Him it is Gods work in regeneration the beauty and freedom of the New Covent;

I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

He puts and cause, we walk and obey purposeful (cause and effect) every time all the time.

If he does not put we do not.... and we can not, because we do not.

There is no cause to do so

In Him,

Bill

 

[JAL]

Good Day, Jal

Not a catch 22 unregenerate man can not understand no catch at all "can not"

You do not active Him it is Gods work in regeneration the beauty and freedom of the New Covent;

I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

He puts and cause, we walk and obey purposeful (cause and effect) every time all the time.

If he does not put we do not....

In Him,

Bill

Then God is in charge of the issue and our complicity is irrelevant. Sure, determinism is one way to solve it but hardly seems like a satisfactory solution to those of us who are libertarians.