Objections to Sola Scriptura?

[BBAS 64]

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!

Good Day,

Clement of Alexandria

"For it is not now the place, but the assemblage of the elect, that I call the Church." (The Stromata, 7:5)

Amen!

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

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!

Doesn't that perspective land you in some trouble as far as Church discipline goes?

Who can exercise authority if the church is invisible and does not correspond to any specific body with disciplinary authority.

No one can excommunicate, reprimand, correct, or even pastor people without their authority to do so being recognised and accepted. If each church, each independent church, can discipline only its own members then what is to be done when a member decides to leave rather than face a disciplinary action? Such a person can go to another independent church and not bother telling anyone about the trouble in the previous church.

 

[BBAS 64]

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.

Good Day, Jal

Well then I guess you have identified the problem.

All I can do is point you to what the text says:

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

Really no problem quite easy and straight forward. God acts with a purpose, and that purpose can not not be thwarted.

In Him,

Bill

 

[eleos1954]

Good Day,

Clement of Alexandria

"For it is not now the place, but the assemblage of the elect, that I call the Church." (The Stromata, 7:5)

Amen!

The elect .... the called out ones .... the bride of Christ.

The true bride of christ, that is, the true church, is an assembly of people that are called out of the world, it's not a earthly institution or specific denomination .... it transcends all of them.

 

[eleos1954]

Doesn't that perspective land you in some trouble as far as Church discipline goes?

Who can exercise authority if the church is invisible and does not correspond to any specific body with disciplinary authority.

No one can excommunicate, reprimand, correct, or even pastor people without their authority to do so being recognised and accepted. If each church, each independent church, can discipline only its own members then what is to be done when a member decides to leave rather than face a disciplinary action? Such a person can go to another independent church and not bother telling anyone about the trouble in the previous church.

Who judges the heart? The church .... or Jesus?

Discipline is keeping each other encouraged to remain faithful to our high calling in Christ.

Jesus is the authority.

Such a person can go to another independent church and not bother telling anyone about the trouble in the previous church

well I dunno .... should people be given the opportunity to change? Is it the churches place to pass along that info? Questionable. Seems like it could very easily lend itself towards gossip.

If each church, each independent church, can discipline only its own members then what is to be done when a member decides to leave rather than face a disciplinary action? S

Then let them leave in peace. No doubt the Lord will work on their heart.

 

[eleos1954]

Doesn't that perspective land you in some trouble as far as Church discipline goes?

Who can exercise authority if the church is invisible and does not correspond to any specific body with disciplinary authority.

No one can excommunicate, reprimand, correct, or even pastor people without their authority to do so being recognised and accepted. If each church, each independent church, can discipline only its own members then what is to be done when a member decides to leave rather than face a disciplinary action? Such a person can go to another independent church and not bother telling anyone about the trouble in the previous church.

Who judges the heart? The church .... or Jesus?

Discipline is keeping each other encouraged to remain faithful to our high calling in Christ.

Jesus is the authority.

Such a person can go to another independent church and not bother telling anyone about the trouble in the previous church

well I dunno .... should people be given the opportunity to change? Is it the churches place to pass along that info? Questionable. Seems like it could very easily lend itself towards gossip.

If each church, each independent church, can discipline only its own members then what is to be done when a member decides to leave rather than face a disciplinary action? S

Then let them leave in peace and pray the Lord will work in their heart.

 

[Clare73]

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

It is precisely to the reason all do not agree on Scripture.

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.

Which is due precisely to the reason I gave. . .refusing to believe Scriptural teaching which one finds personally objectionable.
The problem is not lack of understanding, the problem is objection and lack of belief.

If sola scriptura is "the truth" then why is it not clearly enunciated as a doctrine in holy scriptures?

Probably for the same reason God is Trinity is not clearly stated as doctrine in Scripture. . .maybe because it is self evident from what is written in the 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?

Previously addressed. . .it's not about lack of clarity, it's about lack of belief of what one finds objectionable.

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

It's not about interpretation, it's about not believing what one finds objectionable, and therefore disagreeing, claiming the Scriptures do not present such when the language is clear.

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,

All are sinful, not all refuse to take Scripture at its word, nor deny what they find personally objectionable.

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)?

Previously addressed above. . .it's not about lack of clarity, it's about lack of belief in what some find objectionable therein, and therefore deny what it plainly states.

 

[Clare73]

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.

I don't "activate" the Spirit, he activates me.
I said the flesh wars with the Spirit, which does not mean the Spirit does not eventually prevail over the flesh.
The amount of flesh still in operation affects one's spiritual insight.

 

[Clare73]

Who judges the heart? The church .... or Jesus?
Discipline is keeping each other encouraged to remain faithful to our high calling in Christ.
Jesus is the authority.
well I dunno .... should people be given the opportunity to change? Is it the churches place to pass along that info? Questionable. Seems like it could very easily lend itself towards gossip.
Then let them leave in peace. No doubt the Lord will work on their heart.

Some denominations require a letter of transmittal from the previous church indicating that they left in good standing.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Who judges the heart? The church .... or Jesus?

Discipline is keeping each other encouraged to remain faithful to our high calling in Christ.

Jesus is the authority.

well I dunno .... should people be given the opportunity to change? Is it the churches place to pass along that info? Questionable. Seems like it could very easily lend itself towards gossip.

Then let them leave in peace. No doubt the Lord will work on their heart.

Are you reflecting the teaching of Christ and the apostles in these statements?

 

[JAL]

I don't "activate" the Spirit, he activates me.
I said the flesh wars with the Spirit, which does not mean the Spirit does not eventually prevail over the flesh.
The amount of flesh still in operation affects one's spiritual insight.

That's what another poster said in response to the same objection. And my retort, in that case, is the same to you (post 100). Namely, if God solves the catch-22 by activating himself as to take care of the sinful nature, this creates a deterministic view where we do not really act as free participants in the whole process (i.e. sanctification). That view is fine for determinists but doesn't sit well with those of us who believe in real libertarian freedom.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

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?

I don't go with any of these options.

 

[Clare73]

That's what another poster said in response to the same objection. And my retort, in that case, is the same to you (post 100). Namely, if God solves the catch-22 by activating himself as to take care of the sinful nature, this creates a deterministic view where we do not really act as free participants in the whole process (i.e. sanctification). That view is fine for determinists but doesn't sit well with those of us who believe in real libertarian freedom.

Your God is too small. . .

The will does not operate in a vacuum, it is governed by the disposition--what one prefers, likes.

God works in the disposition of man, giving him to prefer God's will, which he then willingly and freely chooses because he prefers it--the definition of free will.

God does not violate man's free will, God uses it to accomplish his purposes.
Those with the Holy Spirit freely and willingly chooses the things of God because they prefer, like them,
contrary to those in 1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7-8 without the Holy Spirit.

 

[JAL]

Your God is too small. . .

The will does not operate in a vacuum, it is governed by the disposition, what one prefers, likes.

God works in the disposition of man, giving him to prefer God's will, which he then willingly and freely chooses because he prefers it--the definition of free will.

God does not violate man's free will, God uses it to accomplish his purposes.
Man freely and willingly chooses the things of God because of his changed disposition.

Sorry you can't make a deterministic statement and then later come back and equate it with full libertarian freedom. On another occasion, another thread a long while back, you gave me superficial answers, just like this one, but this time I'm not going round and round in circles with you. Frankly I don't have the time. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

On this issue we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Your God is too small. . .

The will does not operate in a vacuum, it is governed by the disposition--what one prefers, likes.

God works in the disposition of man, giving him to prefer God's will, which he then willingly and freely chooses because he prefers it--the definition of free will.

God does not violate man's free will, God uses it to accomplish his purposes.
Those with the Holy Spirit freely and willingly chooses the things of God because they prefer, like them,
contrary to those in 1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7-8 without the Holy Spirit.

In support of your post, I will add some useful information.

The Bible is all about Jesus. He showed that to the two disciples at Emmaus, by going through the whole Torah and pointing out all the places where the Scripture spoke about Him. The New Testament is also about Jesus and Him crucified.

Church tradition is about the church and what it believes. Sometimes the tradition is about Jesus and therefore consistent with the Scriptures. Other times it is not directly about Him, and therefore not consistent with the Scriptures.

Therefore, it is a matter of which is reliable in giving us a clear picture of who Jesus is and what He has done for us to secure the salvation of all who believe in Him.

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except by Me." Therefore, if coming to salvation by Jesus is mandatory, which of the two better reflects the way we should come to the Father through Christ? The answer is obvious - through the Scriptures, because they speak of Jesus all the way through. Church tradition may lead people away from Jesus and cause them to put their trust in a church rather than Jesus.

The Scripture does not say, "Church tradition is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except by it."

There are some churches that teach that the only way people can come to Jesus is through their church. But Jesus never said, "Come unto Me through the Church, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and the church that represents Me shall give you rest." But in practical terms, that is what some churches actually teach. They decide who comes to Jesus and the process in which they approach Him.

The Scripture is more simple and direct - Jesus said, "All those who come to me, I will in no wise cast out." The way to truly come to Jesus is to come directly, bypassing church tradition and "authority".

 

[Clare73]

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

You are setting Scripture against itself. . .1 Thessalonians 2:10 against 1 John 1:8, 1:10,
which is de facto misunderstanding of it, for God does not contradict himself in his word.

Holy, blameless and just as used of persons in Scripture, both OT and NT, do not mean sinless.

 

[Clare73]

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"?

Why does it matter. . .it doesn't change the error of the teaching in regard to justification, which is our topic.

 

[Athanasius377]

What are the doctrinal objections to this Protestant lynchpin. From the vantage of any denomination.

To me, it seems foolish to be against Sola Scriptura. It just makes too much sense that God's inspired word should be the first, middle and last word on all things pertaining to the faith. If this were not so, why do we even have the bible?

Discuss ty and God bless

The problem in this thread will be how one defines Sola Scriptura.

The classical Protestant position is that only scripture is the only God Breathed source of doctrine and practice. That is not to say that there is no need for tradition or the church. It means that those two are on a lower level that scripture.

 

[Athanasius377]

What are the doctrinal objections to this Protestant lynchpin. From the vantage of any denomination.

To me, it seems foolish to be against Sola Scriptura. It just makes too much sense that God's inspired word should be the first, middle and last word on all things pertaining to the faith. If this were not so, why do we even have the bible?

Discuss ty and God bless

The problem in this thread will be how one defines Sola Scriptura.

The classical Protestant position is that only scripture is the only God Breathed source of doctrine and practice. That is not to say that there is no need for tradition or the church. It means that those two are on a lower level that scripture.

 

[Clare73]

Sorry you can't make a deterministic statement and then later come back and equate it with full libertarian freedom.

Who made that rule?

That falls somewhat short of a Biblical demonstration of your personal assertion.

If you had one, you would make it and let it be examined.