/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>704865

Because they understand that the Lord is going to establish a Kingdom not a Democracy.

>>704865

>Sola Scriptura

>Discourages and even outright demonizes the concept of an authority interpreting the Bible in a singular authoritative fashion based on history and tradition.

>Opens the doors for any Tom, Dick, or Harry to interpret the Bible in any way that pleases them, conforms to their own personal biases, or mental illnesses.

>Wonders why Protestantism is a continually splintering train wreck.

>>704865

>There is no “Bible alone” protestantism

Is she just pettifogging or does she really think that there is no Protestant denominations that insists that they are sola scriptura?

>prot theology teaches the trinity. I, personally, like many others, don’t believe there is biblical proof of this,

Trinity is the only way to go about this without God breaking His anti-idolatry and “thou shall have no other gods before me” rules that He gets mad at others doing. Plus there is a lot of Bible verses that points to the Trinity, uses its mechanisms, and itself having Biblical roots in certain verses

>>704868

But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.

>>704865

>My question is after the reformation how come Protestantism continued to splinter and disintegrate, even until today?

Protestantism rejects authority. Rejecting tradition in favor of your personal interpretation of scripture gives a way to heresy. Denying the existence of one true church is a must because then you wouldn't be able to split yourself from the Catholic church.

So when you have a denomination that was founded on "muh authority is bad" then what stops people from spreading heresy? All you have to do is to create your own denomination then. (refer to adventists, mormons and so on..). You may dance around it, deny it but eventually you have to admit this is the product of the reformation.

Protestantism gives a way to relativism (there is no one true church), eventually universalism,it gives a way to secularism - which ended up as a reign of money. If there is no one true faith then there's no use of calling people heretics. I am always confused when protestants use this. There was no denomination that believed in things you believe for 16 centuries. So everyone was a heretic then? What does it even mean if you do not have a doctrine set in stone? it does not make much sense to call anyone a heretic.

>You blame it all on prots.

Reformation may have not happened if Western and Eastern church actually managed to settle their schism. Both sides are probably to blame over schism but both insist it is the other's fault, one does not listen to the other, intentionally twists what the other has to say.

To say it's a fault of Catholic church there was a deformation is the same as saying "The Truth is to blame there are lies".

>I would much prefer if protestantism just had one overseeing church, like the anglicans do, instead of hundreds of splinter sects.

Protestantism would then have to be founded on a different foundations then "le breaking from the muh tyranny"

>why so much infighting and disagreement over theology?

Again is this not what it was based upon? Look at how Protestantism intentionally goes against Catholic tradition (in many cases what is also Orthodox tradition) - saints, Theotokos, Liturgy, dogmas…

To think that you'll create something stable by this is as foolish as expecting a 5 times divorced woman to live in a stable marriage.

“Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand."

>>704865

>Say what you will about the Catholics or Orthodox, but they've been surprisingly stable and preserved the fundamentals for 2000 years, even with their schism 1000 years ago they have more in common with each other than they do with modern protestantism.

Wrong. Catholics and Protestants are much closer to each other than either are to the Orthodox. Don't forget Protestantism didn't appear out of thin air, it is only the result of medieval Catholic theology spiraling out of control.

>My question is after the reformation how come Protestantism continued to splinter and disintegrate, even until today? If they accept sola scriptura and became free from "le roman tyranny" why so much infighting and disagreement over theology?

Something about freedom in diversity, I guess.

But I would say the opposite trend has been true - the Reformation was a shitshow but over time churches with originally disagreeing theology have been entering in communion with each other (the Lutherans with the Reformed in Europe, the Anglicans with the Old Catholics…). And you have pan-denominational movements that show there is some unity even if there are disagreements on certain things (notably the evangelical and charismatic movements).

>>704966

You keep shifting it around, and indeed, it itself keeps shifting itself around constantly, it's like trying to capture an eel in water, so pardon us.

>>705018

>It's been the exact same thing for 500 years

Yes, the reformation has one overarching theology and there is no divergence or heresy among any major protestant church

>>705075

>>why sola scriptura?

Sola scriptura would be nice had the bible promoted it. The bible promotes scriptura, not sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura is a meta-scriptural tradition.

What isn't the basis for sola scriptura? There has to be something I imagine. What would the standard reference for this?

>>705264

What is*

>>705264

The holy bible.

>>705268

Where does it support sola scriptura?

>>705270

Mark 7:8-13. Keep in mind that sola scriptura is the doctrine that holy scripture is the whole of extraordinary divine revelation in the world today, that it is the highest epistemic authority, the rule of faith and life, that it is the standard against which inferior authorities are measured, and that it is fully sufficient for salvation and godliness. For a more thorough description of the doctrine, the following is the entire portion of the Westminster Confession on the topic

>I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.[6]

>II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.[7]

>III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.[8]

>IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]

>V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]

>VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]

>VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]

>VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]

>IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]

>X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]

>>705287

>Mark 7:8-13

This says nothing about the Bible being the only source through which God had given us his teaching. Read the whole fragment with attention, instead of, as it seems to currently be, putting all your attention into one word, "tradition", and forgetting about all the rest. The meaning of this fragments is very clear, as Jesus explicitly explains it throughout the text - Christ is talking here about mere human traditions and customs being placed above the commandments of God, to the point where people are breaking Divone commandments for the sake of these mere human traditions.

>>705311

>the Bible being the only source through which God had given us his teaching

Didn't I already define sola scriptura? It is not the idea that scripture is the only way to learn the truth of God, but that it is our only source of it. Preachers are part of God's ordinary means of teaching, but what they preach is only valid insofar as they actually represent what God spoke in scripture.

>instead of, as it seems to currently be, putting all your attention into one word, "tradition"

I did no such thing. Perhaps you should focus more on what the text says instead of trying to guess my interpretation and how I arrived at it. The point is not the word "tradition". The point is that the pharisees were filtering the scripture through their own centuries old traditions and interpreting it through that lens. Jesus protests that by forcing scripture into their framework they keep themselves from letting it speak for itself. Instead of following the clear words of scripture and rejecting the contradicting traditions, they told themselves their traditions are divine in origin, so the scripture must mean something else, since God does not contradict Himself. The problem was they arrogated the authority of divine revelation to their traditions, human tradition which is so easily corrupted, even organically. How can this be averted? There is but one way. We must be ever vigilant, constantly measuring our traditions against the word of God to see if they are approved. We cannot just assume our traditions are true and seek to harmonize scripture with them, otherwise we repeat the error of the pharisees.

>Christ is talking here about mere human traditions and customs being placed above the commandments of God, to the point where people are breaking Divone commandments for the sake of these mere human traditions.

Quite right. You are absolutely correct, and did not contradict my interpretation at all. You did, however, contradict Rome's claim to a divine apostolic tradition. The traditions of the pharisees are not called human because they lack divine origin, to the contrary, even proper divine traditions are human tradition. They are called human because by the nature of oral tradition they do not come immediately from the mouth of God, but mediately through the mouths of men. Romanists will often say their traditions are divine not human, on the grounds they were revealed by God to the apostles and passed down by the same to the bishops. But I ask, how then can you avoid nullifying the word of God for traditions of men, if you never question your traditions? If we grant Roman tradition is divine, what is to stop it from becoming human, when it is believed to be true by nature instead of derivatively?

>>704865

Sola Scriptura effectively makes the personal interpretations of the individual the highest authority.

Unsurprisingly this has the potential to lead to as many denominations as men can imagine.

Where as when the Scripture is taken with Tradition we have something much more stable.

>>705334

Despite the refusal of papists to note it, we make a strict distinction between interpretation and the interpreted text. You'll never hear an actual Protestant saying that you can interpret the bible however you want. You are bound to interpret the bible the way it was intended. We agree it's unacceptable to incorrectly intepret the bible, what the papists find intolerable is that we correct it by the text. When you change your interpretation because of what an external authority says, unless it is because that authority convinced you your interpretation was incorrect, you aren't actually changing your interpretation, you're saying the bible is wrong. If you believe the bible says X, and you believe X is false, you're saying the bible is wrong, because even if the bible doesn't say X and X is false, to your mind the bible = X. The difference between Romanism and Protestantism is that Protestantism doesn't solve the problem of incorrect interpretation by throwing scripture in a fire, we solve it by doing as the noble Bereans, searching the scriptures night and day to see whether these things are true.

>>705331

Sola scriptura is scripture alone is the rule of faith.

Sola fide is faith alone for salvation .

Alone.

Only.

Any other "definition" is irrelevant.

There is nowhere in the bible where it teaches sola scriptura.

It's a non biblical prot tradition.

>>705287

But what about for example the letters that are referenced by Paul but were never found, or the oral teachings of Jesus that maybe were not written down. That's what bothers me, maybe these things were lost forever and somehow kept through tradition, while the Bible was missing them.

>>705354

Your personal definition is irrelevant. Sola Scriptura means scripture alone, apart from any tradition, or anything else. Sola is not "highest" or "greatest" it means "alone/only" in latin.

>that pic

Dr White used the real definition of Sola Scriptura in a debate against a Catholic. The Catholic asked him where the bible teaches "sola scriptura", where does it teach that scripture is the "only rule of faith and practice" and White mumbled and stumbled around 2 Timothy 3:16 and couldn't find an actual answer, because that verse doesn't have the verse "only" or "alone". And basically lost that argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJskrQq3dXM

>>705490

Epic! Protestantism btfo! You can go back to your Roman Catholic normiebook meme pages now

>>705474

You have to ask yourself, has God failed? If we do not have every piece of revelation God intended for us, we have no grounds for any of it. It's no use to say, "maybe it was preserved in tradition", since it would be only the meaning saved, not the words. We would still have lost the words of God. But do not be disheartened, since we have lost nothing. It's not that the letters were never found, they were never copied. We've found countless copies of Paul's letters because everyone had the knowledge of their inspiration put on their heart just as Christians today do. If it was lost, it was because it was not the word of God. With the words of Christ, though it was indeed God speaking, it is the words recorded in the New Testament that are promised to be inspired and unperishing. Do not forget that He who spoke them on earth also ordered from heaven their writing. If God wanted us to have them, they would be in our bible.

>>705524

> Epic! Protestantism btfo! You can go back to your Roman Catholic normiebook meme pages now

So basically you couldn't think of a response to his claims

>>705490

I'm gonna chim in here and explain that the word sola scriptura isn't a really good word to describe what we believe. It leads to confusion and causes people to think that it's bible only. A better term for it would be prima scriptura. Meaning the bible is the prime, ultimate and final authority in the Christian life. This means that we can have creeds, councils, traditions and even read the fathers, and yes protestants read the early church fathers, specifically the reformed sect, but they all must first confirm to scripture and cannot ad anything to it:

<Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.

1 Corinthians 4:6

>>705351

> You'll never hear an actual Protestant saying that you can interpret the bible however you want.

Thats not the argument here. Why are there so many definitions that claim this but have many fundamental differences. What is the explanation? Clearly only one is following the correct interpretation? Which is it?

>>705542

Curious how this is reconciled to the fact that scripture was not the prime authority of Christ in the early church but authority was given by Christ to the apostles. Genuine question.

>>709603

Denominations*

>>705542

>A better term for it would be prima scriptura

No that would be a bad thing because it opens a door for the pope. That's why 'sola scriptura' is used. It doesn't provide any crack for the pope to slip through

>>709603

>Thats not the argument here

Yes it is. That's why papists will expressly claim that's what we believe all the time, and that's why anon said "the personal interpretations of the individual". The purpose is to strawman sola scriptura

>Why are there so many definitions that claim this but have many fundamental differences

But there aren't. I cannot think of a single denomination that affirms sola scriptura that does not share the same fundamentals as the Protestant reformers (this does NOT include groups such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Gay Christian Movement, as these each attack sola scriptura with the same arguments as Rome and add additional authorities to scripture, whether they be prophets, publications of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, or reason/science/culture). The reason for the differences that do exist between those traditions is not a problem with scripture, but a problem with men. We come to scripture with our own prejudices and traditions, and are inclined to continue believing them, rationalizing our way around the teaching of scripture instead of correcting ourselves. Again, the solution is not to dismiss scripture altogether and place our faith in a monolithic human hierarchy instead, but to submit to scriptural teaching, and we will never submit to scripture so long as we seek to harmonize scripture with human tradition.

>Which is it?

It is the one that actually interprets it as it was intended by the author.

I'll just leave this here.

Kate is an exemplar of why Paul would not suffer a woman to teach

> they have more in common with each other than they do with modern protestantism.

This is false, by the way.

>My question is after the reformation how come Protestantism continued to splinter and disintegrate

You're also wrong about this. The Church has always had splinter groups. They even exist within the eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic denominations, but there they are masked by an overarching bureaucracy (especially when it comes to the papists) that gives the illusion of unanimous assent to a singular body of doctrine.

What's with /christian/ and this obsession of discussing tired strawmen/inacurate cliches over and over and over again by the way?

I cant imagine why a bunch of heretics would splinter 3000000 times a day into meaningless subgroups that have invalid mass at strip malls with literal grape juice and crackers.

>it's the "Protestanism is an amorphous blob" thread again

>>709714

What baffles me is that they put so much emphasis on the Bible being the sole source of authority and they never seem to notice that half the New Testament is Paul writing to various churches using his apostolic authority to correct their wrong teachings. The idea that there are authority figures with greater responsibility to spread correct teaching is right there in the Bible itself. Protestants in the first century would be one of those churches Paul was writing to who were snipping their dicks to be more like Jews or something like that.

ol' kate greenshoes casually comitting blasphemy against the holy spirit, good going kate