/Christ/ - Christianity General

[worldatwar]

View attachment 121811

 

[supadrayk]

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.)
...

In the case of 2 Thessalonians 2:15, this is of course apostolic teaching directly from the apostles during their ministry, their time, not specifically about a new separate infallible tradition to be continued alongside the scriptures. Just to verify my point: "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 part I think it is most important to zoom in on is "that you were taught by us". Key word obviously being taught. It's a command delivered to a specific church for that specific period from the apostles, and the apostles had this authority because they were being very directly influenced by God, which is, again, consistent with scripture (1 Corinthians 2:13).

As for your rebuttal on 2 Timothy 3:16–17, you're correct to say it doesn't explicitly state scripture as the only authority, but of course this verse is an authority claim. It does not need to claim "This is the only" if it is already claiming to be complete for its purpose. It is a total sufficiency claim, not partial sufficiency, as shown by "that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped". If a man of God may be complete by scripture alone, nothing else essential is missing. If scripture isn't sufficient on it's own then what are doctrinal authority is missing here?

The main point of Mark 7:8-13 is that tradition does not ever override God's word. Not only that, but even further in context of this verse, He is speaking to the pharisees about man made traditions that they also believed were counted as religious practices. If there is any scripture that you believe establishes a tradition system that functions as infallible alongside the scriptures, they would need to be demonstrated.

And for Acts 17:11, The verse demonstrates scripture as a standard for which teachings are tested against. Scripture is being focused on as the standard of measurement here. It does not need to explicitly state scripture as the final authority, it's instead demonstrating that function in practice.

Now, all together, these verses paint a consistent picture: teaching being held against God's revealed word as a complete reference point for doctrine. Teaching is measured by the scriptures, not the scriptures and tradition.

 

[supadrayk]

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.

Just because there is disagreement does not logically require an infallible arbiter. +The major church divisions were disputes over both authority structure, tradition, and the interpretation of the scriptures within that frame. It shows that the division doesn't necessarily demonstrate a lack of scripture's by itselfs sufficiency, but instead how differently these man made (mark-7:8) traditions and authority structures approach the texts.

 

[CX2]

baptists won get over it

britbong

 

[supadrayk]

britbong

 

[CX2]

 

[korg]

Just because there is disagreement does not logically require an infallible arbiter. +The major church divisions were disputes over both authority structure, tradition, and the interpretation of the scriptures within that frame. It shows that the division doesn't necessarily demonstrate a lack of scripture's by itselfs sufficiency, but instead how differently these man made (mark-7:8) traditions and authority structures approach the texts.

Your argument that schisms emerge solely from "man-made traditions" instead of the inherent limitations of Sola Scriptura is circular. You're essentially using your own private interpretation to judge with traditions are "of God" and which are "of men". If Scripture was truly enough to function as an objective arbiter, one would expect it to produce unity among those who rely on it alone. Instead, the schism and disunity among Non-Denominationalists proves that without an authoritative pillar of truth (the Church), the text becomes a mirror that reflects the reader's own theology rather than an external, objective rule. By dismissing the consensus of the historic Church, you have simply replaced one authority with your own, effectively making your private judgment the final, infallible 'pope' of your doctrine. If we disagree on something fundamental such as the nature of the Eucharist while relying on the same Bible, by what scriptural mandate is my 'tradition' invalid while your 'private interpretation' is the truth, especially when history shows that the abandonment of apostolic consensus led to an explosion of contradictory doctrines rather than the clarity you claim the text provides?

 

[korg]

In the case of 2 Thessalonians 2:15, this is of course apostolic teaching directly from the apostles during their ministry, their time, not specifically about a new separate infallible tradition to be continued alongside the scriptures. Just to verify my point: "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 part I think it is most important to zoom in on is "that you were taught by us". Key word obviously being taught. It's a command delivered to a specific church for that specific period from the apostles, and the apostles had this authority because they were being very directly influenced by God, which is, again, consistent with scripture (1 Corinthians 2:13).

As for your rebuttal on 2 Timothy 3:16–17, you're correct to say it doesn't explicitly state scripture as the only authority, but of course this verse is an authority claim. It does not need to claim "This is the only" if it is already claiming to be complete for its purpose. It is a total sufficiency claim, not partial sufficiency, as shown by "that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped". If a man of God may be complete by scripture alone, nothing else essential is missing. If scripture isn't sufficient on it's own then what are doctrinal authority is missing here?

The main point of Mark 7:8-13 is that tradition does not ever override God's word. Not only that, but even further in context of this verse, He is speaking to the pharisees about man made traditions that they also believed were counted as religious practices. If there is any scripture that you believe establishes a tradition system that functions as infallible alongside the scriptures, they would need to be demonstrated.

And for Acts 17:11, The verse demonstrates scripture as a standard for which teachings are tested against. Scripture is being focused on as the standard of measurement here. It does not need to explicitly state scripture as the final authority, it's instead demonstrating that function in practice.

Now, all together, these verses paint a consistent picture: teaching being held against God's revealed word as a complete reference point for doctrine. Teaching is measured by the scriptures, not the scriptures and tradition.

Your argument for "total sufficiency" assumes that the man of God in 2 Timothy acts entirely on his own. But in the Early Church that "man" was always part of an organized community guided by the apostles. If Scripture really were the only authority, we would expect Early Christians to solve theological issues and other disputes by simply examining the Bible or having an organized private Bible Study. However, we see them holding Councils and creating Creeds (none of which are found in Scripture).
Now, regarding 2 Thessalonians 2:15, you claim that the "traditions" Paul mentioned were only for that time. And yet you still accept Paul's letters as binding today. By what logic do you keep the written words but discard the oral ones that Paul commanded the Church to keep as firmly?
Furthermore, you use Scripture to test teachings, but you cannot use Scripture to prove which books belong in the Bible, because the Bible contains no table of contents. The early Church (using its authority and tradition) gave you the list of books you now call ''sufficient". If that Church had the authority to define your Bible, why do you deny it the authority to interpret it?

 

[supadrayk]

Your argument that schisms emerge solely from "man-made traditions" instead of the inherent limitations of Sola Scriptura is circular. You're essentially using your own private interpretation to judge with traditions are "of God" and which are "of men". If Scripture was truly enough to function as an objective arbiter, one would expect it to produce unity among those who rely on it alone. Instead, the schism and disunity among Non-Denominationalists proves that without an authoritative pillar of truth (the Church), the text becomes a mirror that reflects the reader's own theology rather than an external, objective rule. By dismissing the consensus of the historic Church, you have simply replaced one authority with your own, effectively making your private judgment the final, infallible 'pope' of your doctrine. If we disagree on something fundamental such as the nature of the Eucharist while relying on the same Bible, by what scriptural mandate is my 'tradition' invalid while your 'private interpretation' is the truth, especially when history shows that the abandonment of apostolic consensus led to an explosion of contradictory doctrines rather than the clarity you claim the text provides?

Disagreement among scripture interpretations doesn't prove the text as insufficient, it just shows that people can misinterpret the text. That problem exists in any system, including the "centralized authorities". The claim that appealing to scripture creates a so called "private pope" is irrelevant, because my claim was never that people are infallible, my claim is all people are fallible, and scripture is the means to test the teachings. As for the "apostolic consensus" claim, that assumes a clear reliable consensus can be identified, which would have to first be demonstrated.

 

[Kote]

Disagreement among scripture interpretations doesn't prove the text as insufficient, it just shows that people can misinterpret the text. That problem exists in any system, including the "centralized authorities". The claim that appealing to scripture creates a so called "private pope" is irrelevant, because my claim was never that people are infallible, my claim is all people are fallible, and scripture is the means to test the teachings. As for the "apostolic consensus" claim, that assumes a clear reliable consensus can be identified, which would have to first be demonstrated.

hablublublu

 

[supadrayk]

Your argument for "total sufficiency" assumes that the man of God in 2 Timothy acts entirely on his own. But in the Early Church that "man" was always part of an organized community guided by the apostles. If Scripture really were the only authority, we would expect Early Christians to solve theological issues and other disputes by simply examining the Bible or having an organized private Bible Study. However, we see them holding Councils and creating Creeds (none of which are found in Scripture).
Now, regarding 2 Thessalonians 2:15, you claim that the "traditions" Paul mentioned were only for that time. And yet you still accept Paul's letters as binding today. By what logic do you keep the written words but discard the oral ones that Paul commanded the Church to keep as firmly?
Furthermore, you use Scripture to test teachings, but you cannot use Scripture to prove which books belong in the Bible, because the Bible contains no table of contents. The early Church (using its authority and tradition) gave you the list of books you now call ''sufficient". If that Church had the authority to define your Bible, why do you deny it the authority to interpret it?

Early Christians writing creeds and holding councils does not show scripture as insufficient, they argued from scripture to clarify doctrine, not introduce a second infallible source of revelation. the appeal to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 assumes that the oral tradition continued as an identifiable preserved tradition, which again would need to be demonstrated to make your point valid. As for the biblical canon, the church recognizing the writings doesnt mean the church gave it the authority, or that the church can give itself the authority to interpret it. You would again, need to demonstrate why the church recognizing these writings would give it authority.

 

[korg]

Disagreement among scripture interpretations doesn't prove the text as insufficient, it just shows that people can misinterpret the text. That problem exists in any system, including the "centralized authorities". The claim that appealing to scripture creates a so called "private pope" is irrelevant, because my claim was never that people are infallible, my claim is all people are fallible, and scripture is the means to test the teachings. As for the "apostolic consensus" claim, that assumes a clear reliable consensus can be identified, which would have to first be demonstrated.

If we both admit that we are fallible human beings, then "testing" out interpretations only shifts the problem, it doesn't solve it. If I interpret a verse one way and you interpret it another, how does the Bible itself tell us which one of us is right? If there is no final, earthly authority that decides whether my interpretation is wrong, then we are left in a situation where every person becomes the final judge of their own doctrine. This is exactly why so many different denominations exist today, all claiming to use the same "standard" to test their beliefs.
You mentioned that 'apostolic consensus' is hard to identify, but that consensus is exactly what gave us the Bible you use today. The early Church gathered at Councils (like the ones that defined the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ) because they knew that Scripture could not be safely interpreted in isolation. They understood that the Church, led by the Holy Spirit, was the necessary context for understanding the written word.
If you say we cannot identify a reliable consensus from the early Church, then you have to explain how we can trust the reliability of the Bible itself. The people who lived, worshipped, and died for the faith in those early centuries were the same people who chose which books belonged in the New Testament. If they were too confused or divided to be trusted with interpreting doctrine, why should we trust them to decide which books were the Word of God? Ultimately, your model offers no way to stop the splintering of the faith, while the model of the ancient Church has preserved the same core teachings for nearly 2,000 years.

 

[worldatwar]

hablublublu

^muslim

 

[worldatwar]

^muslim

ofc @Goot comes to defend the muslim..

they both fuck animals KEK!

 

[GQQT]

ofc @Goot comes to defend the muslim..

they both fuck animals KEK!

what

 

[supadrayk]

If we both admit that we are fallible human beings, then "testing" out interpretations only shifts the problem, it doesn't solve it. If I interpret a verse one way and you interpret it another, how does the Bible itself tell us which one of us is right? If there is no final, earthly authority that decides whether my interpretation is wrong, then we are left in a situation where every person becomes the final judge of their own doctrine. This is exactly why so many different denominations exist today, all claiming to use the same "standard" to test their beliefs.
You mentioned that 'apostolic consensus' is hard to identify, but that consensus is exactly what gave us the Bible you use today. The early Church gathered at Councils (like the ones that defined the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ) because they knew that Scripture could not be safely interpreted in isolation. They understood that the Church, led by the Holy Spirit, was the necessary context for understanding the written word.
If you say we cannot identify a reliable consensus from the early Church, then you have to explain how we can trust the reliability of the Bible itself. The people who lived, worshipped, and died for the faith in those early centuries were the same people who chose which books belonged in the New Testament. If they were too confused or divided to be trusted with interpreting doctrine, why should we trust them to decide which books were the Word of God? Ultimately, your model offers no way to stop the splintering of the faith, while the model of the ancient Church has preserved the same core teachings for nearly 2,000 years.

"So if there is no infallible authority, that must mean everyone is just making up doctrines!" Obviously not. A shared standard can still be tested and discussed by fallible people without needing one final judge (other than God of course). Disagreements don’t prove the standard is wrong, only that people can misunderstand it, which, again, is what happens in every system. Also, the early Church recognizing the Bible doesn’t mean it has infallible authority over how everything in it must be interpreted, recognizing the text and having final interpretive authority are not the same thing.

 

[korg]

Early Christians writing creeds and holding councils does not show scripture as insufficient, they argued from scripture to clarify doctrine, not introduce a second infallible source of revelation. the appeal to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 assumes that the oral tradition continued as an identifiable preserved tradition, which again would need to be demonstrated to make your point valid. As for the biblical canon, the church recognizing the writings doesnt mean the church gave it the authority, or that the church can give itself the authority to interpret it. You would again, need to demonstrate why the church recognizing these writings would give it authority.

You argue that the Church merely "recognized" the authority of Scripture, but this creates a logical trap. If you rely on the early Church's insight to tell you which books are the Word of God, you are basically admitting that the Church possessed a genuine, reliable guided authority to distinguish truth from error in the 4th century. If that same Church was guided by the Holy Spirit to identify the correct canon, on what basis do you claim they suddenly lost that guidance when it came to interpreting the content of those books? You cannot logically accept the Church's work as "infallible" when it gathered the Bible, but "fallible" when it defined the doctrines found within it.
Furthermore, you claim that the Church did not "give" the Bible its authority. Although we agree that God is the source of all authority, the means by which He revealed that authority to the world was through the living, breathing body of the Church. By treating the Bible as an object that exists independently of that body, you essentially turn the text into a document that can be interpreted by anyone, which is precisely why your model struggles to resolve doctrinal disagreements.
You ask for proof for an "identifiable preserved tradition". The fact that the same core doctrines, the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, the real presence in the Eucharist, have been taught by the historic Church for 2,000 years is that proof. If our tradition were really just "man-made" like you claim it to be, then we would've splintered into thousands of different versions over the centuries. Instead, the Orthodox Church has maintained a consistent witness since the time of the Apostles. My question to you is: If Sola Scriptura is superior, then why has it produced the opposite results? There are thousands of denominations, all claiming to be "testing" their beliefs against the same text, yet arriving at mutually exclusive conclusions.

 

[shekel]

View attachment 121812

do they have multiple bbcs or just one

 

[worldatwar]

do they have multiple bbcs or just one

that is honestly a good question..

 

[_73]

do they have multiple bbcs or just one

just one really long one