/Christ/ - Christianity General

[Garf]

Episcopalians won get over it with Bennett foddy

 

[supadrayk]

Episcopalians won get over it with Bennett foddy

is he like my therapist in this situation

 

[Garf]

yes

 

[korg]

baptists won get over it

BRAPtists lost

 

[supadrayk]

BRAPtists lost

debate me whore how so

 

[korg]

debate me whore how so

their theology is unbiblical

 

[Flute]

their theology is unbiblical

like what

 

[supadrayk]

their theology is unbiblical

even though one of their main doctrines is that everything must be tested against the bible and that the bible is the ultimate judge or something along those lines

 

[korg]

even though one of their main doctrines is that everything must be tested against the bible and that the bible is the ultimate judge or something along those lines

If you're gonna follow the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, you're ALWAYS going to end up in a dilemma. The Church is the one who compiled all the Scriptures and assigned the Gospel names based on the authors. Without the guidance of the Church you are lost.



The Heresy Dilemma of Sola Scriptura:



P1. Under sola scriptura, Holy Scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church.



P2. In order for Scripture to function as a rule of faith in any doctrinal dispute, its meaning must be interpreted and applied.



P3. Scripture itself acknowledges the reality of interpretive difficulty and distortion, since some things in it are “hard to understand,” which the ignorant and unstable twist (2 Peter 3:16).



P4. Therefore, the mere existence of an infallible text does not, by itself, eliminate the need for an authoritative judgment about what that text means in disputed cases.



P5. Different persons, congregations, confessions, and traditions can and do interpret the same passages in mutually contradictory ways.



P6. Mutually contradictory interpretations cannot all be the true meaning of Scripture at the same time and in the same sense.



P7. Therefore, in any serious doctrinal dispute, some norm is required not merely to cite Scripture, but to determine which interpretation of Scripture is correct.



P8. To condemn a doctrine as heresy is not merely to say “I think your reading is wrong,” but to issue a binding judgment that a given interpretation deviates from the Christian faith.



P9. A binding judgment of heresy therefore requires an authority competent to identify the true interpretation of Scripture over against false interpretations.



P10. If, under sola scriptura, no infallible interpretive authority exists besides the text itself, then all such judgments must finally rest on fallible individual or communal interpretation.



P11. But a judgment resting finally on fallible individual or communal interpretation cannot be called a definitive condemnation of heresy in the same sreal womang sense claimed by the historic Church.



Conclusion. Therefore, under sola scriptura, one cannot consistently and definitively condemn doctrines as heretical without appealing, in practice, to an interpretive authority beyond Scripture considered as text alone.

 

[supadrayk]

If you're gonna follow the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, you're ALWAYS going to end up in a dilemma. The Church is the one who compiled all the Scriptures and assigned the Gospel names based on the authors. Without the guidance of the Church you are lost.



The Heresy Dilemma of Sola Scriptura:



P1. Under sola scriptura, Holy Scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church.



P2. In order for Scripture to function as a rule of faith in any doctrinal dispute, its meaning must be interpreted and applied.



P3. Scripture itself acknowledges the reality of interpretive difficulty and distortion, since some things in it are “hard to understand,” which the ignorant and unstable twist (2 Peter 3:16).



P4. Therefore, the mere existence of an infallible text does not, by itself, eliminate the need for an authoritative judgment about what that text means in disputed cases.



P5. Different persons, congregations, confessions, and traditions can and do interpret the same passages in mutually contradictory ways.



P6. Mutually contradictory interpretations cannot all be the true meaning of Scripture at the same time and in the same sense.



P7. Therefore, in any serious doctrinal dispute, some norm is required not merely to cite Scripture, but to determine which interpretation of Scripture is correct.



P8. To condemn a doctrine as heresy is not merely to say “I think your reading is wrong,” but to issue a binding judgment that a given interpretation deviates from the Christian faith.



P9. A binding judgment of heresy therefore requires an authority competent to identify the true interpretation of Scripture over against false interpretations.



P10. If, under sola scriptura, no infallible interpretive authority exists besides the text itself, then all such judgments must finally rest on fallible individual or communal interpretation.



P11. But a judgment resting finally on fallible individual or communal interpretation cannot be called a definitive condemnation of heresy in the same sreal womang sense claimed by the historic Church.



Conclusion. Therefore, under sola scriptura, one cannot consistently and definitively condemn doctrines as heretical without appealing, in practice, to an interpretive authority beyond Scripture considered as text alone.

2 Timothy 3:16–17, Mark 7:8–13, Acts 17:11
That doesn't disprove sola scriptura, all it says is that its possible scripture is misinterpreted. Its a bit circular, but if you are going to believe in the bible at all (which you would be insane not to), the bible teaches that scripture is an authority (timothy verse). Disagreement about any text does not logically require an infallible interpreter, it just means the teachings must be tested against the scriptures, as shown in the verses I gave. I will however concede if you can show some verses that contradict sola scriptura.

 

[korg]

2 Timothy 3:16–17, Mark 7:8–13, Acts 17:11
That doesn't disprove sola scriptura, all it says is that its possible scripture is misinterpreted. Its a bit circular, but if you are going to believe in the bible at all (which you would be insane not to), the bible teaches that scripture is an authority (timothy verse). Disagreement about any text does not logically require an infallible interpreter, it just means the teachings must be tested against the scriptures, as shown in the verses I gave. I will however concede if you can show some verses that contradict sola scriptura.

You don't seem to understand what I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to undermine the authority of the Bible, I agree that it's the infallible word of God, and that's what the verses you provided me with mostly say. The Issue is that Scripture is not the ONLY authority we should rely on. The Bible is a complex piece of literature, it's not something you can just pick up and understand, you need the interpretation of an authoritative figure (which is the Church, given to us by Christ in the day of Pentecost in 33 AD)
Now, I will examine the verses one by one based on whether they align with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura:
1. 2 Timothy 3:16–17 - (All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.)
This verse declares that all Scripture is God-Breathed and is a necessary part of spiritual growth, teaching, and correcting believers. Now the reason this verse does not prove Sola Scriptura is because while it acknowledges the supreme value of the Bible, it does not state that it is the ONLY authority a believer should rely on. Instead, Scripture functions as a key part of the larger, cohesive truth of the Church's life and tradition.
2. Mark 7:8–13 - (You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

And he continued, You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”)
I see how someone can use this verse as an attempt to prove Sola Scriptura, however this verse is referring to something entirely different. This verse does NOT reject the authority of Tradition altogether, it critiques men who elevate tradition above the Scriptures. Jesus is condemning a specific, legalistic application of human practices that were being used to bypass the moral law of God (specifically the commandment to honor one's parents, as cited in verse 10). The Orthodox Church teaches that there is a Holy Tradition (the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, handed down from the Apostles) and human traditions (cultural customs, administrative rules, or corrupt interpretations). The latter are subject to correction when they contradict Scripture or divine commands. In short, this verse is not a critique of Tradition by itself, but a critique of Pharisaism, When Jesus rebukes the Pharisees, He is pointing out that they have elevated their own oral legalism to a position above the revealed Word of God.
3. Acts 17:11 - (These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.)
Again, this verse does not prove Sola Scriptura (the belief that scripture should be the ONLY authority a believer should rely on). The verse describes the Berean Jews as "more noble" than those in Thessalonica because they received Paul's message with more eagerness as they examined the Scriptures daily to verify his teachings. Nothing about Sola Scriptura here, I've already mentioned the importance of Scripture in the life of the Church.
Now, for verses that contradict Sola Scriptura I've got 2 Thessalonians 2:15 - (So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.)
The traditions Paul is referring to are not merely human customs, but the teachings and practices passed down from Christ and the Apostles. Paul emphasizes that these traditions were delivered both through his spoken words (oral teaching) and through his letters (written, which became scripture). (the traditions were both oral and written) The purpose of holding to these traditions was to ensure doctrinal purity, maintain unity, and protect against false teachings. In 1 Corinthians 11:2, Paul commends the church for maintaining the traditions just as he delivered them. He also references traditions regarding the "True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist" and "how to conduct church properly".
Clearly, this shows that not even the Apostles relied on Scripture as their SOLE authority, and even instructed believers to do the same. (to also rely on tradition ALONG with Scripture)

 

[myexdrew]

If God real (and all fuggen nice) then why is my dih 2 inches? Take that Christcucks

 

[korg]

If God real (and all fuggen nice) then why is my dih 2 inches? Take that Christcucks

because you're not jelqing

 

[myexdrew]

because you're not jelqing

On tung your not lying?

 

[Flute]

On tung your not lying?

dont do this it will hurt your pecker

 

[myexdrew]

dont do this it will hurt your pecker

>implying I have a pecker and not a neovagina
Nuswas not like THIS

 

[_73]

On tung your not lying?

Get tripple t's name out of your fucking mouth you noob

 

[korg]

Disagreement about any text does not logically require an infallible interpreter, it just means the teachings must be tested against the scriptures, as shown in the verses I gave. I will however concede if you can show some verses that contradict sola scriptura.

Now, to address the rest of your arguments
You claim that no text needs a divine interpreter, and by extension the Bible. If two people disagree about a dogma (Let's say for example that two people disagree about the Divinity of Jesus) and both cite the Bible as their source, who's going to act as a tie-breaker? If there is no final, objective arbiter, then "testing" becomes a recursive loop where the two people just battle their different interpretations of Scripture. If Scripture were sufficient as a stand-alone, self-interpreting rule like you claim it to be, one would expect a high degree of unity among those who hold to Sola Scriptura. Historically speaking this hasn't happened. Instead, we see a fragmentation into thousands of different denominations, all claiming to rely on the same text.

 

[worldatwar]

 

[𓅰𓅪𓃯]

Can somebody please translate this shit cause i don't get it anymore