/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

You are stupid. The books could simply be recognized early on. Of course one can say that this recognition is due to the canon passed down which entails Tradition

>>5839

>You are stupid.

This is all you have.

>>5840

>>5837

>If scripture alone is biblical truth, then where is the inspired table of contents? Why doesn't the Bible have an inspired command or instruction to include (or even exclude) certain books in the Bible?

You are contriving an issue that isn't there for internet argument points. An internal list of the inspired books is not a logical requirement of sola scriptura.

>If the inspired canon is accepted through tradition, then there is no Sola Scriptura.

False dilemma, but the canon is not accepted (read: deemed authoritative) through tradition anyway.

The Canon is not accepted through tradition, it is accepted based on a set of objective criteria:

<1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle?

<2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large?

<3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching?

<4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? 

Your error is based on an inflated idea of what a church council is. It is not a group who is allowed to make inerrant declarations based on some authority pipeline from God; it's a group of scholars assembling in the interest of defining what they perceive to be true and documenting the argument. This is how it has always been, to include every assembly or individual who consolidated a Canon. Their claims stand or fall entirely on the basis of the arguments.

>>5845

Sola Scriptura fails because of the fact that the issue of identifying and knowing what books is canonical rests on the past testimonies of those who cite the books and so on, making it clear these books are the Scriptures which are passed down.

This view is the best view because

1)It doesnt entail the Church above Scriptures and it recognizing what is simply passed down

2)It recognizes the role of Tradition and aiding identification of which books are canonical. Different canon lists arent an isssue because most differences are the edges of Canon and all agree on the core books. Deuterocanon which are not listed canon are still Scriptural.

Sola Scriptura broadly defined makes these a non issue as Keith Matthison would define it. The problem is what is sola scriptura simply becomes what is essentially Prima Scriptura and also misses the doctrine of the right of private judgement which is believed by sola scripturists

So admit yourselves as Prima Scripturists and admit little difference to it if you are gonna use patristic reception to show why the canon today isnt some innovation.

>>5848

You're not interacting with my argument at all

>>5850

It refutes your argument by noting how information and knowledge of what the Canon is comes from Tradition. As I explained, versions of sola scriptura that come close to prima scriptura dont have to worry about this but the doctrine of right of private judgement refutes this, so only a Prima Scriptura view as I outlined best accomodates how one can know the canon without sola eccelsia

>>5853

No, it doesn't. Try reading it again if you want feedback.

>>5854

It does, because as long as Tradition is the way to know the canon, you cannot pull the sola scriptura card here or even defend it on this front, because validation comes from evidence that the list is passed down and that comes from patristic testimony and use, not Scripture Alone.

The Protestant doctrine of the right of private judgement entails that these testimonies CANNOT serve as authorities on this matter, only one's private judgement on the matter. Before anyone says Catholics or Prima Scripturists do private judgement, the fact thay judgement is informed by Tradition as well in theological issues negate the force of this argument, as one comes to his conclusions via advice from Tradition, contra the private judgement doctrines of Protestants

And yes, this is a logical requirement for Sola Scriptura because what books are Divinely Inspired is a matter of faith. It isnt optional adiaphora

>what even is the Spirit?

>>5837

>If scripture alone is biblical truth, then where is the inspired table of contents?

Doesn't need one. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

like in every thread around the sola

sola scriptura ≠ biblicism

>>5837

If there were an inspired table of contents it would not stop you from dismissing biblical authority since one would need to recognize biblical authority to accept the list, as it would itself be part of the bible. Those who already accept biblical authority would not need it. Hence the list would be redundant, hence no list.

>>6401

What is biblicism?

>>6405

It's the idea that the Bible is the only way to convey scripture, which does not fit with sola scriptura. Catholics and orthodox will use it like this:

<how could sola scriptura be true if the Bible wasn't even compiled until after the death of Jesus

But that's an easy strawman to take down. Sola scriptura is the belief that the scriptures tell us everything we need to have salvation. But we don't need to read the Bible to know what the scripture says, that's why we have pastors to spread the word.

>>6411

I'm not sure that's accurate

Sola scriptura refers to the scripture being chief authority. You described the doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture.

When you say "we don't need to read" I'm guessing you mean that the same message can be conveyed off the page, right?

>>6412

Correct, and I like the simplicity of your explanation, mine was a bit off.

>>6415

U good homie 💯

Sola scriptura don't deny secondary authorities. The Nicene creed, for example, is not found in scripture, yet almost everyone that believes in Sola scriptura affirms it. At my church we recite it during every service. Sola scriptura is simply the belief that the Bible alone posses Divine authority and is infallible on all theological matters, and that contains all information necessary for salvation.

>b-but that's Prima scriptura!!1!

No. Prima scriptura believes that there can be forms of Divine revelation outside of scripture. Sola scriptura rejects that view. The writings of early Christians are used to determine the canon not because we believe that these people received some form of Divine revelation telling them which books are canonical, but because they lived close enough to the time when the books of the New Testament were written that they are reliable historical sources regarding the authorship and reception of them. A somewhat similar example would be how Josephus's book "The Jewish Wars" and the writings of Tacitus and Suetonius on the life of Nero are important texts for fully understanding Christ's prophecies about the destruction of Jerusalem and the persecution of Christins, yet no one believes that those books are Divinely inspired. Those people weren't even Christians. Josephus was a pharisee his entire life and Tacitus and Suetonius were pagans.

>>6480

Paying lip service to the creed or early christians when you dont share their theological ideas and worldview isnt using them as authority. It's just a matter of buffet pick and choose

>>6501

Share with us why your group is consistent with early Christianity and classical protestantism is not

>>6502

For one because unlike your side, they believe in so called works salvation. In fact even where justification is by faith like in 1Clement, anyone familiar can easily see how it contains ideas that are contrary to Protestantism such as love between believers forgiving sins and final judgement that considers the works of the believer.

Some Protestants also go even more wrong by denying the real presence in the eucharistic elements and baptismal regeneration, both virtually present whenever these are mentioned. That makes Calvinists, Anabaptists, Baptists and Evangelicals wrong already.

Anyone who reads them also wont find the Protestant doctrine of the right of private judgement anywhere at all. Scripture is the authority but it is always paired with the need of coherence with those before, unity and the belief in the indefectability of the church.

>>6515

Lastly, no Protestant venerates martyrs at all which is a custom documented in early Christianity from the catacombs, writings like Cyprian and the martyr acts. Even someone like Ignatius who doesnt mention it, already says that the Apostles hold transcendent and active authority in the church

“Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.”

Martin Luther @ the Diet of Worms, 1521.

Although in the external court of the church every private person is bound to submit to the synodical decisions (unless he wants to be excommunicated), and such judgment ought to flourish for the preservation of order, peace and orthodoxy, and the suppression of heretical attempts; it does not follow that the judgment is supreme and infallible. For an appeal may always be made from it to the internal forum of conscience, nor does it bind anyone in this court further than he is persuaded of its agreement with the Scriptures.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Enlenctic Theology, vol 1, pp.161.

“What Protestants deny on this subject is, that Christ has appointed any officer, or class of officers, in his Church to whose interpretation of the Scriptures the people are bound to submit as of final authority. What they affirm is that He has made it obligatory upon every man to search the Scriptures for himself, and determine on his own discretion what they require him to believe and to do.”

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, p. 184.

>>6517

From these we see that tradition cannot play any real authoritative role because it can only be based on one's interpretation of Scripture. Remember, they dont clarify that your interpretation of a Scripture can be guided by or reached from other authorities. It is only the Scriptures. Full stop. The natural implication of this is tradition as pick and choose buffet and we see this so plainly when one compares what a Baptist, Evangelical, Pentecostal, Calvinist and even Lutheran, the least in error amongst Sola Scripturists, that there is a huge discrepancy.

>>6501

>>6515

>>6516

>>6517

>>6518

So what authority do we turn to? Heresy has risen just as much from eisegesis performed on scripture rooted in the amorphous nature of Tradition and the fallible nature of "The Church," as it has from eisegesis based on an individual's mangled interpretations of scripture alone.

>>6519

Literally the best markers for a heresy is that it is new or it is just against the context of Scripture. No one can dispute the importance of the Fathers in informing theological opinion, views and exegesis. When you turn them into nothing more than lip service, you are no different than solo scriptura.

One example of how the fathers are important is literally a look at heresies like Monothelitism, semi-arianism and Apollinarianism which can abuse Scriptural language to fit their views. Only by the arguments of the Fathers that the framework for showing how things like these are false can be seen.

The same with the Nicaea controversy

I took the liberty to recapitulate here the posts arguing on the topic.

>>5837 (OP)

If Scripture alone is the source of the truth and the Bible has no table of contents, where does it come the knowledge of what books are of the Scripture and what are not? Tradition?

>>5845

The canon is not accepted through tradition but through some objective criteria: the author, the acceptance at large, consistent with Orthodox teaching, high moral and spiritual values.

>>5848 >>5853 >>5855 >>5856

Sola Scriptura fails because the knowledge of what the Canon is comes from Tradition. "Sola Scriptura" means one can use only the Scripture and his private judgement in order to derive theological truths. The advice from tradition and patristic testimony are not allowed. The only working alternative is "Prima Scriptura".

>>6480

Sola scriptura don't deny secondary authorities. The Nicene creed, for example, is not found in scripture, yet almost everyone affirms it. Sola scriptura denies divine revelations outside the scripture. We refer to the writings of the early Christians not because we believe these people received some form of Divine revelation telling them which books are canonical. In comparison, Prima Scriptura believes that there are forms of Divine revelation outside of scripture.

>>6518

>From these we see that tradition cannot play any real authoritative role

No we see it cannot hold the supreme role. It can be authoritative but subordinate and subject to correction.

>Remember, they dont clarify that your interpretation of a Scripture can be guided by or reached from other authorities. It is only the Scriptures. Full stop

An inane argument to make considering these men you're quoting (in particular the two systematic theology textbooks you quote) are other authorities. If these men believed there was to be no authority in the Church besides scripture, they would have kept silent.

And what sane man would deny that one's understanding of scripture can be helped along by a more wise brother? Or who would pretend that such understanding, simply because it is aided by a more learned believer, is somehow derived from something other than the scripture, when that is its source and proof?

The nature of this strawman argument is to misrepresent sola scriptura by pretending that we do not place final authority in the bible as we so plainly do, but in the private judgement of the interpreter. But this is shown to be a misrepresentation not only in the habit of the Protestant churches down through the centuries to give weight to learned theologians and authoritative councils, but also in that we do not allow ourselves to grow conceited in even our own interpretations, but are always reforming, constantly trying the interpretations of ourselves and our brothers in the tribunal of scripture.

>The natural implication of this is tradition as pick and choose buffet

We are not picking and choosing, because again, we are not the authority. We allow scripture to guide our steps, instead of subjugating it to the whims of human tradition.

>>6521

And how did the fathers reason? Did they simply cite their own authority and leave it at that like you do? No, they were as committed to scripture as we, it is from that well they drew their theology and gave weight to their words.

>>6523

The problem is as all the quotes from the Protestant theologians provided demonstrate, the ultimate authority is quite literally from one's own private judgement after searching Scriptures. That those men be in your framework, secondary authorities does not matter, as they all show what Sola Scriptura does, turning secondary authority to some pick and choose buffet! The evidence is the huge rift between the early christians and the Protestants even on the issue of authority! Many smart Protestants who see this issue like you decide to appeal to the objectivity of Scripture and so claim that what you do is pick and choose buffet the church fathers according to the interpretation of Scripture you arrived at. This is inconsistent because as early Christians like Irenaeus shows, there are specific principles required to grasp the true meaning of Scripture from using the regula fidei as the plot and starting point to read it, which shows you are getting something besides Scripture to arrive at what Scripture says and even enlighten understanding, not resorting to Scripture itself for those. To the Protestant's credit, they do this but instead of the regula passed down antiquity, they simply follow the regula of Calvin, Anderson, Luther, Bunyan…etc who are essentially their fathers in contrast to Augustine, Irenaeus, Justin..etc. Those people are your weight, not the fathers.

But the similarities end here, as shown by what Luther says for example at the Diet of Worms, you are NOT to use councils or fathers who always err, but the Bible. Turretin also says this, if your conscience of what Scripture says is not what synods or the church says, you follow your interpretation, not the church. This opposes Tertullian and Irenaeus who says if two sides have differing interpretations, the side with the succession from antiquity wins, not your private reading. Saying there is objectivity wont work here because who to follow? LUTHER? CALVIN? ANDERSON?

Tell me which one gives the objective Spirit inspired reading of Scripture?

You are always Reforming and changing, mutating because you stray from Tradition. Tradition never changes. As the great Calvinist ANS Lane says of the early Church's Coincidence view, Tradition is evidence of true and proper interpretation. That is why heresy can be detected, because the Fathers are given serious weight, not empty lip service

>>6523

On your last point, you done what you accuse us Prima Scripturists of doing, not giving weight to Scripture. We do, so much so that we actually take the experience of learned exegetes like the church fathers seriously when reading the text. We read WITH them, not read to pick and choose buffet. We understand that Scripture is clear, sufficient and perfect but with the simple caveat that the correct lens to read it is there. This is the goal of Tradition, as Athanasius in his argument against the Arians shows. Scripture is the center but the issue of HOW to read is also in his mind, this is why he appeals to the LENS of Scripture or the Scope. He even emphasizes the antiquity and consistent flow of his position instead of it being new. He even appeals to the liturgics of the church like in his Festal Letters, showing how the Commemoration and Office of Mary is superflous if Arians are right. His prime example, Anthony is shown to obey the Catholic Church and his own views, will be used by Cyril later on, the AUTHORITY theologian of Chalcedon!

We love Scripture and we are so sane to recognize that the text must be approached PROPERLY. We dont go and turn this proper matrix into a matter of pick and choose buffet and understand because of the importance of secondary authorities to read Scripture and understand it as they are useful guides, we dont go crazy and contradict this by saying Scripture is the only court of appeal in dogma because a heretic can be a sophist and fool many by making it seem Scripture agrees with him. We also recognize that if the understanding of text rely on secondary authorities, as they are what inform HOW we read the text, we are fools to then take the lens passed down and used to interpret the text to submit to the individual, no matter the objectivity or guide of the Spirit be.

This is indeed so sad and unfortunate, because you allow the wisdom of a smarter brother to aid your reading of the text. Yet you turn tail and submit the wisdom of the brothers of antiquity, to the lens of the Reformation.

>>6526

Is this an emotionally distressing topic for you? That was quite the ramble

>the ultimate authority is quite literally from one's own private judgement after searching Scriptures.

As opposed to what, one's "private" judgment after hearing a church declaration? Every verbal message requires interpretation.

This argument is an equivocation on the word "authority".

>This opposes Tertullian and Irenaeus who says if two sides have differing interpretations, the side with the succession from antiquity wins, not your private reading.

If they actually taught this, they're wrong because that's a textbook appeal to tradition fallacy

>Saying there is objectivity wont work here because who to follow?

The objectivity is found in the hermeneutics. There is a correct way to interpret and an incorrect way. The teacher is the expositor of what the text says, not the creator of new doctrine.

>>6526

>The problem is as all the quotes from the Protestant theologians provided demonstrate, the ultimate authority is quite literally from one's own private judgement after searching Scriptures.

This is an empty assertion that doesn't interact with anything I said, instead repeating an already refuted point as if I said nothing.

>pick and choose buffet

I will repeat myself just once: we do not judge secondary authorities, God does through His word.

>there are specific principles required to grasp the true meaning of Scripture from using the regula fidei as the plot and starting point to read it, which shows you are getting something besides Scripture

You think the rule of faith is distinct from scripture?

>you are getting something besides Scripture to arrive at what Scripture says and even enlighten understanding

I already noted the validity of enlightenment of interpretation from external sources. This does not impugn sola scriptura because scripture and my interpretation of scripture are distinct, so the latter can be supplemented by external sources without the former being impugned. My understanding of scripture can be helped along by another mere man, but this does not change the fact my understanding is of nothing other than the very words of God. This is only a problem if I place absolute weight in the aid, as the papists do with tradition and the magisterium.

>To the Protestant's credit, they do this but instead of the regula passed down antiquity, they simply follow the regula of Calvin, Anderson, Luther, Bunyan…etc who are essentially their fathers in contrast to Augustine, Irenaeus, Justin..etc

No sir, we do not pick and choose theologians and set them against each other, we like to hear the wisdom of learned Christians from all ages, whether ancient, medieval or modern.

>you are NOT to use councils or fathers who always err

Is that what he said? They ALWAYS err? Let's hear the quote again: "it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves". You see, you are equivocating Luther's words. He wasn't talking about aids of interpretation, he was talking about epistemic certainty and bondage of conscience. This is why he notes their errors, it demonstrates their failure to stand side-by-side with scripture, which alone is infallible, perfect, and binding on the conscience.

>This opposes Tertullian and Irenaeus who says if two sides have differing interpretations, the side with the succession from antiquity wins, not your private reading

No sir, you are misrepresenting them and taking them out of their historical context. They didn't say this about private interpretation of scripture, they said it about general religion, and they said it in the specific context of the Gnostic controversy. I agree with them, if you have a religion which can not be traced back to the apostles in the New Testament, such as Rome with its traditions allegedly passed down in secret from bishop to bishop, then it is no apostolic tradition but human novelty. Such are the various novel heresies of Rome, such as the papacy, transubstantiation, the Marian dogmas etc etc. which have no relation to the apostolic writings.

>who to follow?

God, you follow God who spoke the scriptures. 1 Corinthians 1:12-13

>You are always Reforming and changing, mutating

Are we so different from our forebears? Have we changed so much from Luther and Calvin and Zwingli? No. We are still the same precisely because we are constantly on guard against human traditions, clinging so dearly to the unchanging standard of holy scripture. Contrast this to Rome, which has become so incredibly different just in the last century, let alone the last millennium. What good their tradition and their magisterium has done them.

>>6527

>We understand that Scripture is clear, sufficient and perfect but with the simple caveat that the correct lens to read it is there

So clear, sufficient and perfect that it is absolutely unclear, insufficient and imperfect without this lens you subjugate it to.

>a heretic can be a sophist and fool many by making it seem Scripture agrees with him

You can deceive and make it look like anything agrees with you. The question is: does scripture actually agree with him? Unlike you evidently, I actually believe scripture has objective meaning, so the sophistical arguments of heretics are irrelevant because they can and will be shown to contradict scripture. I see no need to discard the bible's authority and instead make those very heretics the judge of every doctrine. There is no problem to solve.

>the lens passed down and used to interpret the text to submit to the individual

It is to submit to scripture, not the individual. Scripture does not exist only in my mind.

>>6529

Saying every verbal message requires interpretation doesnt work. Because it is a matter of whether one assents to it or not if one is unsure or in doubt. According to Turretin, yes, if what you interpret is against the council or synod, you can literally oppose it no problem at all. Provided that your basis is on Scripture.

Saying there is a right and wrong way of reading Scripture PROVES my point because what interpretation one ends up with depends on the lens of hermeneutics one is using when reading the text and his basic first principles. Tradition provides these tools for everyone. This is in fact a large component of Tradition, how texts are read and interpreted, which are seriously considered when reading Scripture. The problem with your hermeneutics of course is that it provides no objectivity because Lutherans, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Baptists and Reformed all end up disagreeing on even what Sola Fide is, the very thing you guys are supposed to agree on!

>>6530

1)False, as long as you cannot address how everything can be objected as long as it doesnt line up with ones interpretation of the text, that is essentially proving that sola scriptura is solo scriptura. Because there is virtually no role for secondary authorities, although we know in practice you dont do this. Even ANS Lane observes this.

2)it isnt God judging, it is you, because you as reader is deciding whether what a council or father said is valid. How do you do that? By referring to your interpretation of Scripture because that's what it is be it Scripture is objective or that somehow you are guided by the Spirit but that should be doubtful if your interpretation is foreign to earlier exegetes.

3)the Rule of faith ISNT scripture. A summary of what a text says, isnt the text itself. You reading a summary of a movie isnt the same as watching the movie itself!

4)Any use of Tradition to know the text or settle matters of faith is already close to how Papists use Tradition. This is why here you have to ultimately refer to the assumption of the objectivity of Scripture which fails because as we all know in practice, you just refer back to your own regula fidei, which you just claim to be what Scripture says, not on the guidance of something besides Scripture. Saying your understanding of a verse aided by someone else is nothing more than that of the Word of God says nothing, because so what? A Papist can appeal to Tradition and say the same! The weight being Inspired is simply because Papists and I of course, believe the Spirit guided these interpreters even if they are fallible, as God promised not even Hades will prevail over his Church. Even my own trust in tradition is based on NOTHING ELSE BUT THE WORD OF GOD. And it is also objective that verse is difficult to interpret as something else.

4)Luther says they OFTEN ERR. That shows to him, the Fathers actually frequently contradict one another. In fact in context, what Luther is showing is precisely why he and no one should place trust in the Fathers as authoritative. Can they be secondary? Yes. Even I made this clear. Secondary to the Lutheran or Protestant first principles which is claimed to be Scripture. Eventhough they differ as we get deeper.

5)Except guess what? What Irenaeus and Tertullian addresses are a situation in which two sides present their interpretation. In such an instance, an appeal to antiquity is the key which relies on predecessors. You claim to accept this but we know you dont. Because you clearly dont have a cult of martyrs, you clearly dont even believe Deuterocanon are Inspired which many Fathers to varying degrees agree. On Baptism and Eucharist? Well I leave that for you to reveal your views on that, Atoning Almsgiving which many Fathers believed in and also in Irenaeus, Mary as co-recapulilator of humanity by her obedience.

So in practice, your claim is again, "I accept IF it agrees with my denomination's Regula Fidei".

4)Your forebearers erred and contradict themselves on key issues like the Eucharist, Baptism, Sola Fide, Church Government, How to worship and even the saying of Ave Maria. So no. Unless you as a Lutheran decide that Luther is the LEGIT or a Reformed as Calvin THE LEGIT or a Baptist as JOHN SYMTH PASTOR JIM THE LEGIT, you are only in a house divided on matters of faith.

5)So you think Scripture read with faulty lenses is CLEAR and OBJECTIVE? This is silly. As Irenaeus' analogy of the Mosaic shows, put it in the wrong order and shit happens!

6)more like submitting to your interpretation. Especially when in a deadlock like Irenaeus v Gnostics, we NEED to show the coherence of text and show the antiquity of our position

Let's start with one dogma for our friend. Show me solely by Scriptures, Christ having a human and divine will. Go on and show me the verses. Here's the thing, we know the verses because of the Past Fathers like Maximus(who Prots completely ignore) actually provides some examples and also from the older fathers, which can inform us about the text.

Here we see the issue of WHERE in Scripture can X be found?

We try to address this by looking at the DEPOSIT of Tradition which gives us some helpful tools of which verses we can use and how we can argue from them.

This we see starts with Scripture as core authority which lesser authorities help to inform, without turning into a buffet fest. This isnt sola scriptura, as the core Scripture is arrived at by means of secondary authorities aka secondary causes. The EFFICIENT CAUSE is Scripture, reached through the SECONDARY CAUSE aka Tradition

>>6531

>Saying every verbal message requires interpretation doesnt work.

Why not? This is a fundamental flaw with your premise. The means of interpreting tradition are likewise reliant on hermeneutics just like interpreting scripture.

>Saying there is a right and wrong way of reading Scripture PROVES my point because what interpretation one ends up with depends on the lens of hermeneutics one is using when reading the text and his basic first principles

That doesn't prove your point because this fact isn't in conflict with the doctrine of sola scriptura. Appeal to tradition doesn't solve this dilemma

>The problem with your hermeneutics of course is that it provides no objectivity because (x, y, z) all end up disagreeing on even what Sola Fide is, the very thing you guys are supposed to agree on!

This is not an argument against the premise of sola scriptura, but you're actually mistaken. Classical Protestantism in all of these camps have exactly the same idea of sola fide as defined by Luther. The debate is in application, or in novel, modern liberal scholarship in these theological camps.

>>6501

Wait, are you the Malaysian sperg again? No wonder it seemed like you didn't even understand what I posted. You have terrible reading comprehension.

>>6538

1)The only thing needed is practically just context. That's it. Even then when scholars go to work on this, regardless of denomination, the picture is always contrary to the Protestant view. So this is redundant as we already have more than enough work done that practically anyone who can reads can see it for themselves and get it.

2)The dilemma is only for your side. Why? Because Tradition is the right way to interpret which is passed down or given in the Fathers. That lens is the requirement to understand how to read which only creates a situation where to know Scripture, one is required to go to Tradition. This is NOT THE CASE as even Papists affirm a MATERIAL SUFFICIENCY of Scripture where the document contains the necessary articles of faith. Yet practical experience shows that for ease of access since not everyone is a scholar and the texts actually have an order to them to read, Tradition comes in and give the clarity.

This opposes sola scriptura because the system required for that clarity is in its own practice, simply replaced with Protestant Regula Fidei and submitted to it under the assumption that is Scripture with more room for private judgement and turning the Fathers into a buffet as clearly you arent going to say with 1Clement, Love between believers COVER SIN.

3)This is mistaken because Classical Reformers have two different ideas of Sola Fide where the only starting point shared is IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS, NO WORKS or SYNERGY. Luther's own sola fide isnt the sola fide of the Baptist or Calvinist because Luther's Sola Fide demands Baptismal Regeneration, Calvin's doesnt. Lutherans dont fixate on assurance as the later Calvin do or go fatalist.

>this guy is back again

Just letting you guys know you're going to get anywhere with this guy. He's a Malaysian Baptist-turned-Anglican who has a hate boner for Baptists and likes to pretend that Anglicans aren't Protestants. He'll deliberately misinterpret anything you say to him, constantly move goalposts, and use all kinds of mental gymnastics just to get the last word in. If that doesn't work he resorts to spamming passages from books, which he doesn't really understand, in the hopes that no one will be autistic enough to read through them all, let alone check to see if the sources really say what he claims they do(which they almost never do.) Sort of like the internet equivalent of gish galloping. And if you point any of this out he accuses you of slandering him.

>>6543

>how to bear false witness 101 when every credible source is against you

>>6542

This is tedious and I'm not interested in engaging every point ad nauseum.

Sola scriptura is explicitly anti-relativist. We do not affirm private interpretation, we only reject that there is an unfalsifiable human institution through which God brings instruction.

Those nuances among reformation views are ancillary to the doctrine of sola fide.

>>6543

Can BO verify? I'm suspecting so also

>>6543

>Baptist-turned-Anglican

That's just one of the lies he likes to tell because he thinks it boosts his rhetoric or something. He's actually a papist and I don't know about before that

t. has been interacting with this sperg since he first appeared on 4/his/ years ago

>>6547

So from your experience, is he a sincere overzealous/ruthless evangelist, or is he just a troll with too much time on his hands, who goes to autistic lengths to seem authentic?

>>6548

Both tbh

>>6545

>we only reject that there is an unfalsifiable human institution through which God brings instruction.

Does this mean that any Biblical interpretation is uncertain and open to debate? If yes, then is there anything certain at all?

>>6550

Yes everything is "open for debate", as in there shouldn't be a coercive entity forcing you to be orthodox. No, this does not mean nothing is certain. That just doesn't logically follow.

Imagine trying to apply this standard to the field of mathematics or geology.

>Can we really know if 2 and 2 makes 4 unless a divine representative declares it so?

Pretty silly

>>6553

>No, this does not mean nothing is certain.

I don't understand. What exactly is certain? Is there an exhaustive list of certain things? Is it always your personal choice what you will consider certain and what not?

>>6555

Everything the Bible teaches is certain. There is a correct approach to biblical interpretation that arrives you at the right answer on any given doctrine. There are more complicated doctrines that it is fair to hold less close to the chest.

Are you trying to catch me in an inconsistency or something? Do you see an issue?

What's the alternative?

>>6557

>Everything the Bible teaches is certain.

Ok, but considering that there are alternative interpretations of the Bible how do we know what exactly the Bible teaches?

>There is a correct approach to biblical interpretation that arrives you at the right answer

Are you saying there is a correct approach which guarantees we will arrive to the same answer if we both follow it? Are there people who know this approach that can be used as reliable sources of biblical interpretation?

>Are you trying to catch me in an inconsistency or something?

Sorry if it looks that way. No, I am genuinely curious how these questions are answered from the position of Sola Scriptura.

>>6545

And there you go proving my point again by pointing out the indefectability of the church is to be rejected, contrary ironically, to Scripture. And here's the thing, you MUST accept private interpretation because of the doctrine of the right of private judgement. It isnt this that makes sola scriptura relativist, it is simply the basic fact that this methodology shows itself as unable to provide consistent interpretation, shown by the different dogmas of your side. Crying "muh application", doesnt change that as it is still ultimately two different conclusions reached from the same starting principles, which only make your position relativist in nature.

>>6566

But there's ultimate truth, and ultimate truth exists independent of human thought. If nary a human lived, two and two would still equal four.

So when it comes to scripture, the truth is whatever God intended when he breathed scripture.

We may take incorrect interpretations. We reserve the right to be incorrect. We see as through a glass darkly. But you can't just abandon the determination of truth to any authority past the author Himself.

Relativism suggests that every possible explanation is a truth, but Christianity teaches that Jesus is the way, the truth, the life.

>>6567

So what IS THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH? Is Baptism necessary for Salvation or not?

Do works somehow count into our Salvation by final vindication or not?

Is Jesus' promise in Matthew a statement on the church's indefectability or not?

Your approach simply turns the Bible into nothing else than science and vain philosophy where everything goes as no one really knows the truth even if it is taken for granted. Clearly many things are so clear in the Bible but with this additude, we see even the clear things become dim

>>6569

Do you believe those questions are answerable?

Do you believe those questions can be answered by scripture?

People can only misinterpret scripture if their interpretation falls contrary to the objective truth. It's not that anything goes, it's just accepting the fact that there will always be incorrect opinions. The person who believes that two and two make five doesn't change the reality: he can claim a private interpretation, but there isn't one there.

Things can be taken for granted and yet still be untrue.

>>6571

It is clear enough for me even with sola scriptura. But because of how you differ even with that, unable to settle that once and for all even when it is so clear, this is why Tradition acts as a beautiful compliment to the chaos

Sola Scriptura can be ruled out easily by the fact that different books have different messages. Sometimes Jesus exists to save the Jews alone, other times he planned to adopt gentiles all along. Sometimes Christianity is a movement for resistance, other times for peace, other times for universal adoption.

These inconsistencies aren't resolved by the book itself, but thinkers who came later, primarily from the church itself.

But putting that aside, Protestants, the only ones who take the notion seriously, literally removed entire segments from the Old Testament that had been there for a thousand years to promote their own personal ideologies. Before you can even address the question, you have to establish a canon between all parties, and Protestantism has yet to provide an answer that isn't really fucking stupid.

>>6589

This serves as a good reminder to everybody that people who don't believe in sola scriptura don't believe the bible is the infallible word of God

>>6589

Wrong. That is WORSE than sola scriptura. You could had said the meaning was PASSED DOWN and shown in how the church worships and preaches. But you do this nonsense that makes the Protestants actually RIGHT in their assessment about you

>>6589

The Protestant Canon predates the Roman Canon by centuries

>>6601

this is false by the simple fact that even non canon Apocrypha are cited as INSPIRED by the fathers

>>6601

>>6603

You both are off topic.