Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

With respect to your idea that the thief may have been baptized at some point prior to his death, this simply doesn't make any logical sense. Jews didn't practice baptism. It was John the Baptist who introduced Baptism in the brief period prior to the beginning of Christ's ministry. So there is no logical reason to believe the thief was, say, sprinkled as a child.

Moreover, I would submit that anyone who believes the plain language of this account - that the thief truly and genuinely had a heart change, repenting of his sins and submitting to Christ immediately prior to his death - and at the same time posits that our God would have condemned him to hell had he not been, say, sprinkled as a baby (an act he would have had no input in or, indeed, any knowledge of) completely misunderstands the nature of God. Only an unmerciful and cruel God would say to the thief - sorry, I realize you have truly repented of your sins and called on my name, but your parents didn't sprinkle you as a child and you're nailed to a cross and can't be baptized so you're going to hell. How absurd and against the nature of the merciful God revealed to us in scripture.

---

God isn't bound by the sacraments. We Catholics recognize the baptism of desire.

What you call inconsistency on God's part, others would call reasonableness and justice.

---

So, baptism and other acts of man (i.e. sacraments) are required for salvation unless God makes an exception, in which case they're not required.

Maybe we should put an asterisk next to Catholic doctrine on the requirements for salvation?

---

If an asterisk helps you understand, sure. I don't apologize just because the Church isn't overly legalistic. It never has tried to be.

---

Catholic doctrine is the very definition of legalistic. There is a strict adherence to laws, rules, and regulations, often to the letter rather than the spirit of the law, throughout Catholicism. And then when someone brings up an example that refutes such legalism, you claim, well, yeah, I know we teach all that stuff is required, but in this instance, God make an exception.

You believe in a very inconsistent God, which is problematic when you have a works-based faith.

---

Yet here I am adhering to the spirit of the sacraments, and here you are crying foul.

---

LOL. It appears you missed the irony of this statement...

I sure hope you "adhere" to enough rules at the right time.

---

Didn't realize "adhere" was supposed to be a bad word. I'll still stick with the spirit of Christ's teaching.

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Yes. In Catholicism, you can see the papacy increasingly aligning itself with broad globalist and political initiatives, which many Catholics interpret as drifting away from traditional doctrine and toward international ideological trends.

With Protestantism, the pattern is different but leads to a similar problem: the historic denominations are shrinking, while nondenominational and loosely organized groups grow. They're increasingly resisting any form of institutional authority, to the point that many Christians conclude that formal church structure and even consistent doctrine isn't necessary at all.

No binding authority or shared structure, every individual becomes their own interpreter: it will only accelerate division and doctrinal drift. I think it's only a matter of time before core doctrines, like even something as foundational as the Trinity, gets reinterpreted or outright rejected. We're already seeing hints of that in some corners of nondenominational and online-influencer Christianity, where historic creeds and councils are treated as optional "opinions" instead of boundaries of the faith.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Yes. In Catholicism, you can see the papacy increasingly aligning itself with broad globalist and political initiatives, which many Catholics interpret as drifting away from traditional doctrine and toward international ideological trends.

With Protestantism, the pattern is different but leads to a similar problem: the historic denominations are shrinking, while nondenominational and loosely organized groups grow. They're increasingly resisting any form of institutional authority, to the point that many Christians conclude that formal church structure and even consistent doctrine isn't necessary at all.

No binding authority or shared structure, every individual becomes their own interpreter: it will only accelerate division and doctrinal drift. I think it's only a matter of time before core doctrines, like even something as foundational as the Trinity, gets reinterpreted or outright rejected. We're already seeing hints of that in some corners of nondenominational and online-influencer Christianity, where historic creeds and councils are treated as optional "opinions" instead of boundaries of the faith.

---

Very good insight. I agree that the Catholic Church is adhering to globalosm and it's precisely because they don't regard Scripture as the Supreme Authority on earth. I also agree that there is a big problem.on the horizon because of Non Denominational Churches becomming so numerous and powerful, yes Doctinal lines are being blurred and false Doctrines are creeping in everywhere. We live in dangerous times. Christ is about to rapture the Church, the Tribulation period is very near and Christ's return is also very near.

What is yiur Theological background?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Yes. In Catholicism, you can see the papacy increasingly aligning itself with broad globalist and political initiatives, which many Catholics interpret as drifting away from traditional doctrine and toward international ideological trends.

With Protestantism, the pattern is different but leads to a similar problem: the historic denominations are shrinking, while nondenominational and loosely organized groups grow. They're increasingly resisting any form of institutional authority, to the point that many Christians conclude that formal church structure and even consistent doctrine isn't necessary at all.

No binding authority or shared structure, every individual becomes their own interpreter: it will only accelerate division and doctrinal drift. I think it's only a matter of time before core doctrines, like even something as foundational as the Trinity, gets reinterpreted or outright rejected. We're already seeing hints of that in some corners of nondenominational and online-influencer Christianity, where historic creeds and councils are treated as optional "opinions" instead of boundaries of the faith.

---

The Church doesn't align itself with political trends. If it cares about immigration, the environment, abortion, or gay marriage, it has sound theological reasons to do so.

Doc Holliday said:

---

With Protestantism, the pattern is different but leads to a similar problem: the historic denominations are shrinking, while nondenominational and loosely organized groups grow. They're increasingly resisting any form of institutional authority, to the point that many Christians conclude that formal church structure and even consistent doctrine isn't necessary at all.

No binding authority or shared structure, every individual becomes their own interpreter: it will only accelerate division and doctrinal drift. I think it's only a matter of time before core doctrines, like even something as foundational as the Trinity, gets reinterpreted or outright rejected. We're already seeing hints of that in some corners of nondenominational and online-influencer Christianity, where historic creeds and councils are treated as optional "opinions" instead of boundaries of the faith.

---

Unfortunately this trend has affected the scriptura of sola scriptura itself. The ESV seems to have become the most popular evangelical translation, but it is not a static work. Quite a contrast to Deuteronomy 4:2 and Psalm 12:6-7.

We Need Stable English Bibles

"As for the ESV, it was first published in 2001. They initially made minor changes (2002), then 360 changes (2007), then 275 changes (2011), then changed 29 verses (2016) in what was supposed to be the "permanent text" of the ESV so as to "stabilize" the translation. That would have been a good decision.
However, between August 2016 and September 2016, Crossway changed course and recommitted to updating the ESV text. Crossway issued a statement saying:"

Quote:

---

We have become convinced that this decision was a mistake… Our goal at Crossway remains as strong as ever to serve future generations with a stable ESV text. But the means to that goal, we now see, is not to establish a permanent text but rather to allow for ongoing periodic updating of the text

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Yes. In Catholicism, you can see the papacy increasingly aligning itself with broad globalist and political initiatives, which many Catholics interpret as drifting away from traditional doctrine and toward international ideological trends.

With Protestantism, the pattern is different but leads to a similar problem: the historic denominations are shrinking, while nondenominational and loosely organized groups grow. They're increasingly resisting any form of institutional authority, to the point that many Christians conclude that formal church structure and even consistent doctrine isn't necessary at all.

No binding authority or shared structure, every individual becomes their own interpreter: it will only accelerate division and doctrinal drift. I think it's only a matter of time before core doctrines, like even something as foundational as the Trinity, gets reinterpreted or outright rejected. We're already seeing hints of that in some corners of nondenominational and online-influencer Christianity, where historic creeds and councils are treated as optional "opinions" instead of boundaries of the faith.

---

The Church doesn't align itself with political trends. If it cares about immigration, the environment, abortion, or gay marriage, it has sound theological reasons to do so.

---

Sure...

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Yes. In Catholicism, you can see the papacy increasingly aligning itself with broad globalist and political initiatives, which many Catholics interpret as drifting away from traditional doctrine and toward international ideological trends.

With Protestantism, the pattern is different but leads to a similar problem: the historic denominations are shrinking, while nondenominational and loosely organized groups grow. They're increasingly resisting any form of institutional authority, to the point that many Christians conclude that formal church structure and even consistent doctrine isn't necessary at all.

No binding authority or shared structure, every individual becomes their own interpreter: it will only accelerate division and doctrinal drift. I think it's only a matter of time before core doctrines, like even something as foundational as the Trinity, gets reinterpreted or outright rejected. We're already seeing hints of that in some corners of nondenominational and online-influencer Christianity, where historic creeds and councils are treated as optional "opinions" instead of boundaries of the faith.

---

The Church doesn't align itself with political trends. If it cares about immigration, the environment, abortion, or gay marriage, it has sound theological reasons to do so.

---

Sure...

---

Immigration may be your overriding concern, but it's not the only thing the Church cares about. Far from it.

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Do you anti-sola scripturists understand that sola scriptura does NOT preclude a central interpretive authority? Sola scriptura does not mean "self interpretation". And do you realize that "sola opinari" exists in RC and Orthodoxy, but instead of it being your own opinion, you're submitting and binding yourself to the opinions of others?

For as long and as vehemently you guys have argued against sola scriptura, I thought that by now you'd make some kind of effort to finally understand what it means. Tribe over truth, that's all you guys do.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Do you anti-sola scripturists understand that sola scriptura does NOT preclude a central interpretive authority? Sola scriptura does not mean "self interpretation". And do you realize that "sola opinari" exists in RC and Orthodoxy, but instead of it being your own opinion, you're submitting and binding yourself to the opinions of others?

For as long and as vehemently you guys have argued against sola scriptura, I thought that by now you'd make some kind of effort to finally understand what it means. Tribe over truth, that's all you guys do.

---

Everyone relies on some form of authority…that's not in dispute. The real question is which authority, and how its legitimacy is grounded?

Under sola scriptura, you ultimately rely on your tradition's interpretive framework (whether that's Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.). Even if you claim a "central interpretive authority," that authority only exists because you've judged it to be the right one based on your own interpretation of Scripture. The final court is still the individual or chosen denomination.

Orthodoxy grounds authority differently:
in the historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed.

So the contrast isn't "self-interpretation vs. submitting to others' opinions."It's:

You: an authority structure your tradition created centuries after the apostles.

Us: the authority structure that the apostles' own disciples lived under and passed down.

Did Jesus not foresee that there would be squabbles and disputes in the church and he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anyone to an interpretation? So it's up to everyone's DIY with every generation having to reinvent the wheel?

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Do you anti-sola scripturists understand that sola scriptura does NOT preclude a central interpretive authority? Sola scriptura does not mean "self interpretation". And do you realize that "sola opinari" exists in RC and Orthodoxy, but instead of it being your own opinion, you're submitting and binding yourself to the opinions of others?

For as long and as vehemently you guys have argued against sola scriptura, I thought that by now you'd make some kind of effort to finally understand what it means. Tribe over truth, that's all you guys do.

---

Everyone relies on some form of authority…that's not in dispute. The real question is which authority, and how its legitimacy is grounded?

Under sola scriptura, you ultimately rely on your tradition's interpretive framework (whether that's Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.). Even if you claim a "central interpretive authority," that authority only exists because you've judged it to be the right one based on your own interpretation of Scripture. The final court is still the individual or chosen denomination.

Orthodoxy grounds authority differently:
in the historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed.

So the contrast isn't "self-interpretation vs. submitting to others' opinions."
It's:

You: an authority structure your tradition created centuries after the apostles.
Us: the authority structure that the apostles' own disciples lived under and passed down.

Did Jesus not foresee that there would be squabbles and disputes in the church and he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anyone to an interpretation? So it's up to everyone's DIY with every generation having to reinvent the wheel?

---

Your argument isn't against sola scriptura, then. You're arguing for whose interpretation do we bind ourselves to.

And you continuously make the claim that you're following the "historic" and "continuous" interpretations of the early church, when it's been shown repeatedly that you aren't. I'm losing hope that you're gonna put truth over tribe. It seems you've set your mind, and now you're in the same mind trap as the Roman Catholics.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Do you anti-sola scripturists understand that sola scriptura does NOT preclude a central interpretive authority? Sola scriptura does not mean "self interpretation". And do you realize that "sola opinari" exists in RC and Orthodoxy, but instead of it being your own opinion, you're submitting and binding yourself to the opinions of others?

For as long and as vehemently you guys have argued against sola scriptura, I thought that by now you'd make some kind of effort to finally understand what it means. Tribe over truth, that's all you guys do.

---

Everyone relies on some form of authority…that's not in dispute. The real question is which authority, and how its legitimacy is grounded?

Under sola scriptura, you ultimately rely on your tradition's interpretive framework (whether that's Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.). Even if you claim a "central interpretive authority," that authority only exists because you've judged it to be the right one based on your own interpretation of Scripture. The final court is still the individual or chosen denomination.

Orthodoxy grounds authority differently:
in the historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed.

So the contrast isn't "self-interpretation vs. submitting to others' opinions."It's:

You: an authority structure your tradition created centuries after the apostles.

Us: the authority structure that the apostles' own disciples lived under and passed down.

Did Jesus not foresee that there would be squabbles and disputes in the church and he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anyone to an interpretation? So it's up to everyone's DIY with every generation having to reinvent the wheel?

---

I know that's what "orthodoxy" likes to allege. The problem is, Orthodoxy doesn't have a historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed. And where early church writings exist, they diverge significantly with one another. So there really is no consistent, continuous public witness. The practices of the early churches diverged almost as wildly as today's denominations. Hell, Catholic tradition has changed dramatically over the last 2,000 years.

This is of course why scripture is of such pivotal importance, and takes precedence over wildly divergent tradition.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Do you anti-sola scripturists understand that sola scriptura does NOT preclude a central interpretive authority? Sola scriptura does not mean "self interpretation". And do you realize that "sola opinari" exists in RC and Orthodoxy, but instead of it being your own opinion, you're submitting and binding yourself to the opinions of others?

For as long and as vehemently you guys have argued against sola scriptura, I thought that by now you'd make some kind of effort to finally understand what it means. Tribe over truth, that's

---

You: an authority structure your tradition created centuries after the apostles.

Us: the authority structure that the apostles' own disciples lived under and passed down.

---

What's your evidence that the apostles lived under and passed down your current authority system, including their "successors'"authority to interpret scripture for you and make it binding for you on pain of anathema (rejection by God, i.e. go to Hell)?

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Do you anti-sola scripturists understand that sola scriptura does NOT preclude a central interpretive authority? Sola scriptura does not mean "self interpretation". And do you realize that "sola opinari" exists in RC and Orthodoxy, but instead of it being your own opinion, you're submitting and binding yourself to the opinions of others?

For as long and as vehemently you guys have argued against sola scriptura, I thought that by now you'd make some kind of effort to finally understand what it means. Tribe over truth, that's all you guys do.

---

Everyone relies on some form of authority…that's not in dispute. The real question is which authority, and how its legitimacy is grounded?

Under sola scriptura, you ultimately rely on your tradition's interpretive framework (whether that's Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.). Even if you claim a "central interpretive authority," that authority only exists because you've judged it to be the right one based on your own interpretation of Scripture. The final court is still the individual or chosen denomination.

Orthodoxy grounds authority differently:
in the historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed.

So the contrast isn't "self-interpretation vs. submitting to others' opinions."It's:

You: an authority structure your tradition created centuries after the apostles.

Us: the authority structure that the apostles' own disciples lived under and passed down.

Did Jesus not foresee that there would be squabbles and disputes in the church and he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anyone to an interpretation? So it's up to everyone's DIY with every generation having to reinvent the wheel?

---

I know that's what "orthodoxy" likes to allege. The problem is, Orthodoxy doesn't have a historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed. And where early church writings exist, they diverge significantly with one another. So there really is no consistent, continuous public witness. The practices of the early churches diverged almost as wildly as today's denominations. Hell, Catholic tradition has changed dramatically over the last 2,000 years.

This is of course why scripture is of such pivotal importance, and takes precedence over wildly divergent tradition.

---

You're making two claims that contradict each other.

1) "The early church had wildly divergent practices and beliefs

2.) "Therefore Scripture must take precedence over tradition"

The New Testament itself is a product of that same early Church you're claiming is wildly divergent. If the early Church was so unreliable, then appealing to their Scripture becomes self defeating. You can't both reject the early Church's continuity and trust the canon they produced.

You can dislike Orthodoxy, but you CANNOT claim the continuous, apostolic churches vanished while still trusting the canon, the creed and the sacraments those churches preserved. The New Testament couldn't be codified if it was always wildly divergent.

Early Christians had variations, but not on the core of the faith.

Can you guys tell me who has it right?

Baptists who deny sacraments?
Petnacostals who deny creeds?
Calvinists who deny free will?
Lutherans who contradict all of them?
Non denoms who deny everything except their own pastor's opinons?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Do you anti-sola scripturists understand that sola scriptura does NOT preclude a central interpretive authority? Sola scriptura does not mean "self interpretation". And do you realize that "sola opinari" exists in RC and Orthodoxy, but instead of it being your own opinion, you're submitting and binding yourself to the opinions of others?

For as long and as vehemently you guys have argued against sola scriptura, I thought that by now you'd make some kind of effort to finally understand what it means. Tribe over truth, that's all you guys do.

---

Everyone relies on some form of authority…that's not in dispute. The real question is which authority, and how its legitimacy is grounded?

Under sola scriptura, you ultimately rely on your tradition's interpretive framework (whether that's Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.). Even if you claim a "central interpretive authority," that authority only exists because you've judged it to be the right one based on your own interpretation of Scripture. The final court is still the individual or chosen denomination.

Orthodoxy grounds authority differently:
in the historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed.

So the contrast isn't "self-interpretation vs. submitting to others' opinions."It's:

You: an authority structure your tradition created centuries after the apostles.

Us: the authority structure that the apostles' own disciples lived under and passed down.

Did Jesus not foresee that there would be squabbles and disputes in the church and he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anyone to an interpretation? So it's up to everyone's DIY with every generation having to reinvent the wheel?

---

I know that's what "orthodoxy" likes to allege. The problem is, Orthodoxy doesn't have a historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed. And where early church writings exist, they diverge significantly with one another. So there really is no consistent, continuous public witness. The practices of the early churches diverged almost as wildly as today's denominations. Hell, Catholic tradition has changed dramatically over the last 2,000 years.

This is of course why scripture is of such pivotal importance, and takes precedence over wildly divergent tradition.

---

You're making two claims that contradict each other.

1) "The early church had wildly divergent practices and beliefs

2.) "Therefore Scripture must take precedence over tradition"

The New Testament itself is a product of that same early Church you're claiming is wildly divergent. If the early Church was so unreliable, then appealing to their Scripture becomes self defeating. You can't both reject the early Church's continuity and trust the canon they produced.

You can dislike Orthodoxy, but you CANNOT claim the continuous, apostolic churches vanished while still trusting the canon, the creed and the sacraments those churches preserved. The New Testament couldn't be codified if it was always wildly divergent.

Early Christians had variations, but not on the core of the faith.

Can you guys tell me who has it right?

Baptists who deny sacraments?
Petnacostals who deny creeds?
Calvinists who deny free will?
Lutherans who contradict all of them?
Non denoms who deny everything except their own pastor's opinons?

---

Sure both can be true. Scripture hasn't changed. We know from the early manuscripts, and those discovered later, that it has been incredibly consistent.

Church traditions have indeed changed, and some, significantly so. Take the Catholic Church, for example. Pope Gregory made significant changes to Catholic doctrine and practices in the 600s. It has continued to evolve fairly substantially since that time. The idea that the current iteration of Catholicism resembles the church of 30AD simply isn't in any way factual.

Pointing out many divergent beliefs among the church simply enforces what I have been saying.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Do you anti-sola scripturists understand that sola scriptura does NOT preclude a central interpretive authority? Sola scriptura does not mean "self interpretation". And do you realize that "sola opinari" exists in RC and Orthodoxy, but instead of it being your own opinion, you're submitting and binding yourself to the opinions of others?

For as long and as vehemently you guys have argued against sola scriptura, I thought that by now you'd make some kind of effort to finally understand what it means. Tribe over truth, that's all you guys do.

---

Everyone relies on some form of authority…that's not in dispute. The real question is which authority, and how its legitimacy is grounded?

Under sola scriptura, you ultimately rely on your tradition's interpretive framework (whether that's Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.). Even if you claim a "central interpretive authority," that authority only exists because you've judged it to be the right one based on your own interpretation of Scripture. The final court is still the individual or chosen denomination.

Orthodoxy grounds authority differently:
in the historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed.

So the contrast isn't "self-interpretation vs. submitting to others' opinions."It's:

You: an authority structure your tradition created centuries after the apostles.

Us: the authority structure that the apostles' own disciples lived under and passed down.

Did Jesus not foresee that there would be squabbles and disputes in the church and he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anyone to an interpretation? So it's up to everyone's DIY with every generation having to reinvent the wheel?

---

I know that's what "orthodoxy" likes to allege. The problem is, Orthodoxy doesn't have a historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed. And where early church writings exist, they diverge significantly with one another. So there really is no consistent, continuous public witness. The practices of the early churches diverged almost as wildly as today's denominations. Hell, Catholic tradition has changed dramatically over the last 2,000 years.

This is of course why scripture is of such pivotal importance, and takes precedence over wildly divergent tradition.

---

You're making two claims that contradict each other.

1) "The early church had wildly divergent practices and beliefs

2.) "Therefore Scripture must take precedence over tradition"

The New Testament itself is a product of that same early Church you're claiming is wildly divergent. If the early Church was so unreliable, then appealing to their Scripture becomes self defeating. You can't both reject the early Church's continuity and trust the canon they produced.

You can dislike Orthodoxy, but you CANNOT claim the continuous, apostolic churches vanished while still trusting the canon, the creed and the sacraments those churches preserved. The New Testament couldn't be codified if it was always wildly divergent.

Early Christians had variations, but not on the core of the faith.

Can you guys tell me who has it right?

Baptists who deny sacraments?
Petnacostals who deny creeds?
Calvinists who deny free will?
Lutherans who contradict all of them?
Non denoms who deny everything except their own pastor's opinons?

---

Sure both can be true. Scripture hasn't changed. We know from the early manuscripts, and those discovered later, that it has been incredibly consistent.

Church traditions have indeed changed, and some, significantly so. Take the Catholic Church, for example. Pope Gregory made significant changes to Catholic doctrine and practices in the 600s. It has continued to evolve fairly substantially since that time. The idea that the current iteration of Catholicism resembles the church of 30AD simply isn't in any way factual.

Pointing out many divergent beliefs among the church simply enforces what I have been saying.

---

When you have the clear testimony from the beginning that centers everything around Jesus and going only to him for salvation.... and today you find yourself praising and glorifying Mary, building shrines and statues of her everywhere that you bow and pray to, all while crediting her for salvation......

..... you HAVE TO be able to see that you've been steered WAAAY off course, don't you??

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Do you anti-sola scripturists understand that sola scriptura does NOT preclude a central interpretive authority? Sola scriptura does not mean "self interpretation". And do you realize that "sola opinari" exists in RC and Orthodoxy, but instead of it being your own opinion, you're submitting and binding yourself to the opinions of others?

For as long and as vehemently you guys have argued against sola scriptura, I thought that by now you'd make some kind of effort to finally understand what it means. Tribe over truth, that's all you guys do.

---

Everyone relies on some form of authority…that's not in dispute. The real question is which authority, and how its legitimacy is grounded?

Under sola scriptura, you ultimately rely on your tradition's interpretive framework (whether that's Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.). Even if you claim a "central interpretive authority," that authority only exists because you've judged it to be the right one based on your own interpretation of Scripture. The final court is still the individual or chosen denomination.

Orthodoxy grounds authority differently:
in the historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed.

So the contrast isn't "self-interpretation vs. submitting to others' opinions."It's:

You: an authority structure your tradition created centuries after the apostles.

Us: the authority structure that the apostles' own disciples lived under and passed down.

Did Jesus not foresee that there would be squabbles and disputes in the church and he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anyone to an interpretation? So it's up to everyone's DIY with every generation having to reinvent the wheel?

---

I know that's what "orthodoxy" likes to allege. The problem is, Orthodoxy doesn't have a historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed. And where early church writings exist, they diverge significantly with one another. So there really is no consistent, continuous public witness. The practices of the early churches diverged almost as wildly as today's denominations. Hell, Catholic tradition has changed dramatically over the last 2,000 years.

This is of course why scripture is of such pivotal importance, and takes precedence over wildly divergent tradition.

---

You can dislike Orthodoxy, but you CANNOT claim the continuous, apostolic churches vanished while still trusting the canon, the creed and the sacraments those churches preserved. The New Testament couldn't be codified if it was always wildly divergent.

Early Christians had variations, but not on the core of the faith.

Can you guys tell me who has it right?

Baptists who deny sacraments?
Petnacostals who deny creeds?
Calvinists who deny free will?
Lutherans who contradict all of them?
Non denoms who deny everything except their own pastor's opinons?

---

You say that we're saying that the apostolic churches "vanished". What we're saying is that Scripture, i.e. the canon IS the witness of the apostolic churches and that any church today that holds to Scripture IS continuing the original apostolic tradition. We don't think the apostolic churches vanished - however, we do know that their original faith has been corrupted and compromised throughout church history. We've been giving you the evidence and reasoning for that. This isn't about "disliking" Orthodoxy or any church or denomination, it's just pointing out what is true.

The only way to know if you're being consistent with the original apostolic tradition, and not compromised, is to adhere to Scripture. If you follow tradition in addition to scripture, then you are following something that was added to the original apostolic tradition - UNLESS you can show us that the tradition in question actually did come from the original apostles. Can you? I've asked this over and over from Catholics and Orthodox, but no one has ever been able to. And that's no surprise, because everything that we know came from the apostles is ONLY contained in Scripture - that's precisely why the only way to be sure that you're continuing the original apostolic tradition is to adhere to Scripture only. That's why sola scriptura should be the guiding principle of Christianity.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Do you anti-sola scripturists understand that sola scriptura does NOT preclude a central interpretive authority? Sola scriptura does not mean "self interpretation". And do you realize that "sola opinari" exists in RC and Orthodoxy, but instead of it being your own opinion, you're submitting and binding yourself to the opinions of others?

For as long and as vehemently you guys have argued against sola scriptura, I thought that by now you'd make some kind of effort to finally understand what it means. Tribe over truth, that's all you guys do.

---

Everyone relies on some form of authority…that's not in dispute. The real question is which authority, and how its legitimacy is grounded?

Under sola scriptura, you ultimately rely on your tradition's interpretive framework (whether that's Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.). Even if you claim a "central interpretive authority," that authority only exists because you've judged it to be the right one based on your own interpretation of Scripture. The final court is still the individual or chosen denomination.

Orthodoxy grounds authority differently:
in the historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed.

So the contrast isn't "self-interpretation vs. submitting to others' opinions."It's:

You: an authority structure your tradition created centuries after the apostles.

Us: the authority structure that the apostles' own disciples lived under and passed down.

Did Jesus not foresee that there would be squabbles and disputes in the church and he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anyone to an interpretation? So it's up to everyone's DIY with every generation having to reinvent the wheel?

---

I know that's what "orthodoxy" likes to allege. The problem is, Orthodoxy doesn't have a historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed. And where early church writings exist, they diverge significantly with one another. So there really is no consistent, continuous public witness. The practices of the early churches diverged almost as wildly as today's denominations. Hell, Catholic tradition has changed dramatically over the last 2,000 years.

This is of course why scripture is of such pivotal importance, and takes precedence over wildly divergent tradition.

---

Can you guys tell me who has it right?

Baptists who deny sacraments?
Petnacostals who deny creeds?
Calvinists who deny free will?
Lutherans who contradict all of them?
Non denoms who deny everything except their own pastor's opinons?

---

So, this has been your repeated argument against sola scriptura, your argument being that since Baptists, Pentacostals, Calvinists, Lutherans, etc. all have varying beliefs it means that sola scriptura leads to confusion and division among believers. And since Jesus did not want his believers to be divided, then it follows that sola scriptura is wrong. Do I have your view correct?

Assuming this is correct, I hope you realize that this argument is a fallacious non sequitur. It isn't an argument against sola scriptura, but rather an argument against personal, individual layperson interpretation of Scripture, in favor of a central interpretive authority that tells all believers what to believe. Neither of these preclude sola scriptura. You're dealing with the issue of authority over interpretation, not sola scriptura.

Do I have your positions correct, and do you agree with this? I don't want to move on further and answer your questions until I'm sure we agree so far.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Do you anti-sola scripturists understand that sola scriptura does NOT preclude a central interpretive authority? Sola scriptura does not mean "self interpretation". And do you realize that "sola opinari" exists in RC and Orthodoxy, but instead of it being your own opinion, you're submitting and binding yourself to the opinions of others?

For as long and as vehemently you guys have argued against sola scriptura, I thought that by now you'd make some kind of effort to finally understand what it means. Tribe over truth, that's all you guys do.

---

Everyone relies on some form of authority…that's not in dispute. The real question is which authority, and how its legitimacy is grounded?

Under sola scriptura, you ultimately rely on your tradition's interpretive framework (whether that's Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.). Even if you claim a "central interpretive authority," that authority only exists because you've judged it to be the right one based on your own interpretation of Scripture. The final court is still the individual or chosen denomination.

Orthodoxy grounds authority differently:
in the historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed.

So the contrast isn't "self-interpretation vs. submitting to others' opinions."It's:

You: an authority structure your tradition created centuries after the apostles.

Us: the authority structure that the apostles' own disciples lived under and passed down.

Did Jesus not foresee that there would be squabbles and disputes in the church and he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anyone to an interpretation? So it's up to everyone's DIY with every generation having to reinvent the wheel?

---

I know that's what "orthodoxy" likes to allege. The problem is, Orthodoxy doesn't have a historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed. And where early church writings exist, they diverge significantly with one another. So there really is no consistent, continuous public witness. The practices of the early churches diverged almost as wildly as today's denominations. Hell, Catholic tradition has changed dramatically over the last 2,000 years.

This is of course why scripture is of such pivotal importance, and takes precedence over wildly divergent tradition.

---

Can you guys tell me who has it right?

Baptists who deny sacraments?
Petnacostals who deny creeds?
Calvinists who deny free will?
Lutherans who contradict all of them?
Non denoms who deny everything except their own pastor's opinons?

---

So, this has been your repeated argument against sola scriptura, your argument being that since Baptists, Pentacostals, Calvinists, Lutherans, etc. all have varying beliefs it means that sola scriptura leads to confusion and division among believers. And since Jesus did not want his believers to be divided, then it follows that sola scriptura is wrong. Do I have your view correct?

Assuming this is correct, I hope you realize that this argument is a fallacious non sequitur. It isn't an argument against sola scriptura, but rather an argument against personal, individual layperson interpretation of Scripture, in favor of a central interpretive authority that tells all believers what to believe. Neither of these preclude sola scriptura. You're dealing with the issue of authority over interpretation, not sola scriptura.

Do I have your positions correct, and do you agree with this? I don't want to move on further and answer your questions until I'm sure we agree so far.

---

I am not arguing against sola scriptura in the narrow sense of "Scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice."

Text by itself never interprets itself. Hermeneutics, the rules and methods of interpreting Scripture, are built into how anyone reads the Bible. It's a built in problem that we can't escape.

My critique is about how sola scriptura functions in practice: when you remove a central, divinely sanctioned interpretive authority, sola scriptura almost inevitably leads to subjective, conflicting interpretations, and we can see this historically in the massive fragmentation among Protestants.

The issue is not just personal interpretation; it's who has the authority to bind the faithful in truth.

So I agree with your distinction: the problem is not sola scriptura per se, but the lack of centralized, apostolic authority to interpret Scripture rightly. My point is that historically, sola scriptura has functioned in a way that fails to preserve the unity and obedience Jesus intended, which is why I critique it.

If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding, why does it produce mutually contradictory theologies all claiming to be biblical? Either only one is correct, in which case Scripture alone isn't actually self-interpreting, authority is needed to determine which interpretation is right. Or all of them are wrong in some way, in which case Scripture alone fails to prevent doctrinal error.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Do you anti-sola scripturists understand that sola scriptura does NOT preclude a central interpretive authority? Sola scriptura does not mean "self interpretation". And do you realize that "sola opinari" exists in RC and Orthodoxy, but instead of it being your own opinion, you're submitting and binding yourself to the opinions of others?

For as long and as vehemently you guys have argued against sola scriptura, I thought that by now you'd make some kind of effort to finally understand what it means. Tribe over truth, that's all you guys do.

---

Everyone relies on some form of authority…that's not in dispute. The real question is which authority, and how its legitimacy is grounded?

Under sola scriptura, you ultimately rely on your tradition's interpretive framework (whether that's Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.). Even if you claim a "central interpretive authority," that authority only exists because you've judged it to be the right one based on your own interpretation of Scripture. The final court is still the individual or chosen denomination.

Orthodoxy grounds authority differently:
in the historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed.

So the contrast isn't "self-interpretation vs. submitting to others' opinions."It's:

You: an authority structure your tradition created centuries after the apostles.

Us: the authority structure that the apostles' own disciples lived under and passed down.

Did Jesus not foresee that there would be squabbles and disputes in the church and he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anyone to an interpretation? So it's up to everyone's DIY with every generation having to reinvent the wheel?

---

I know that's what "orthodoxy" likes to allege. The problem is, Orthodoxy doesn't have a historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed. And where early church writings exist, they diverge significantly with one another. So there really is no consistent, continuous public witness. The practices of the early churches diverged almost as wildly as today's denominations. Hell, Catholic tradition has changed dramatically over the last 2,000 years.

This is of course why scripture is of such pivotal importance, and takes precedence over wildly divergent tradition.

---

Can you guys tell me who has it right?

Baptists who deny sacraments?
Petnacostals who deny creeds?
Calvinists who deny free will?
Lutherans who contradict all of them?
Non denoms who deny everything except their own pastor's opinons?

---

So, this has been your repeated argument against sola scriptura, your argument being that since Baptists, Pentacostals, Calvinists, Lutherans, etc. all have varying beliefs it means that sola scriptura leads to confusion and division among believers. And since Jesus did not want his believers to be divided, then it follows that sola scriptura is wrong. Do I have your view correct?

Assuming this is correct, I hope you realize that this argument is a fallacious non sequitur. It isn't an argument against sola scriptura, but rather an argument against personal, individual layperson interpretation of Scripture, in favor of a central interpretive authority that tells all believers what to believe. Neither of these preclude sola scriptura. You're dealing with the issue of authority over interpretation, not sola scriptura.

Do I have your positions correct, and do you agree with this? I don't want to move on further and answer your questions until I'm sure we agree so far.

---

I am not arguing against sola scriptura in the narrow sense of "Scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice."

Text by itself never interprets itself. Hermeneutics, the rules and methods of interpreting Scripture, are built into how anyone reads the Bible. It's a built in problem that we can't escape.

My critique is about how sola scriptura functions in practice: when you remove a central, divinely sanctioned interpretive authority, sola scriptura almost inevitably leads to subjective, conflicting interpretations, and we can see this historically in the massive fragmentation among Protestants.

The issue is not just personal interpretation; it's who has the authority to bind the faithful in truth.

So I agree with your distinction: the problem is not sola scriptura per se, but the lack of centralized, apostolic authority to interpret Scripture rightly. My point is that historically, sola scriptura has functioned in a way that fails to preserve the unity and obedience Jesus intended, which is why I critique it.

If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding, why does it produce mutually contradictory theologies all claiming to be biblical? Either only one is correct, in which case Scripture alone isn't actually self-interpreting, authority is needed to determine which interpretation is right. Or all of them are wrong in some way, in which case Scripture alone fails to prevent doctrinal error.

---

Let's be clear - you are still mixing concepts. You aren't actually arguing against how sola scriptura "functions in practice", you are still arguing authority over interpretation. Because even if you did not adhere to sola scriptura and you included tradition as an infallible authority, the result can still be conflicting interpretations and fragmentation. The traditions themselves must also be interpreted, not to mention it must be decided which tradition from which church father is authoritative and which are not, as well as who gets to decide.

Let's also clear up your definition of sola scriptura: it is NOT defined as "scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice". This is a common error in understanding. Sola scriptura, simply defined, is the principle that Scripture is the only infallible authority over Christian faith and practice. Sola scriptura does not preclude other kinds of authority that believers can choose to bind themselves to. But it holds that those authorities are always under the authority of scripture, because they are not in of themselves infallible, and therefore always subject to questioning and challenge.

In addition, you are also incorrect that sola scriptura "guarantees correct understanding". Sola scriptura has nothing to do with infallibility of interpretation and understanding.

Do you agree with all this? I don't want to move on until we agree to the concept first, otherwise it's just not going to be productive.

The reason these are vitally important to clear up is that so many people shoot down sola scriptura by using straw men arguments like these, illustrating a lack of understanding of the concept (and/or dishonesty, which I'm not accusing you of). What's worse, is that many don't even seem to want to correct their misunderstanding, and they just keep repeating the same flawed argument over and over, even after I've corrected them. THAT would be dishonesty, or at the least, laziness.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Do you anti-sola scripturists understand that sola scriptura does NOT preclude a central interpretive authority? Sola scriptura does not mean "self interpretation". And do you realize that "sola opinari" exists in RC and Orthodoxy, but instead of it being your own opinion, you're submitting and binding yourself to the opinions of others?

For as long and as vehemently you guys have argued against sola scriptura, I thought that by now you'd make some kind of effort to finally understand what it means. Tribe over truth, that's all you guys do.

---

Everyone relies on some form of authority…that's not in dispute. The real question is which authority, and how its legitimacy is grounded?

Under sola scriptura, you ultimately rely on your tradition's interpretive framework (whether that's Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.). Even if you claim a "central interpretive authority," that authority only exists because you've judged it to be the right one based on your own interpretation of Scripture. The final court is still the individual or chosen denomination.

Orthodoxy grounds authority differently:
in the historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed.

So the contrast isn't "self-interpretation vs. submitting to others' opinions."It's:

You: an authority structure your tradition created centuries after the apostles.

Us: the authority structure that the apostles' own disciples lived under and passed down.

Did Jesus not foresee that there would be squabbles and disputes in the church and he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anyone to an interpretation? So it's up to everyone's DIY with every generation having to reinvent the wheel?

---

I know that's what "orthodoxy" likes to allege. The problem is, Orthodoxy doesn't have a historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed. And where early church writings exist, they diverge significantly with one another. So there really is no consistent, continuous public witness. The practices of the early churches diverged almost as wildly as today's denominations. Hell, Catholic tradition has changed dramatically over the last 2,000 years.

This is of course why scripture is of such pivotal importance, and takes precedence over wildly divergent tradition.

---

Can you guys tell me who has it right?

Baptists who deny sacraments?
Petnacostals who deny creeds?
Calvinists who deny free will?
Lutherans who contradict all of them?
Non denoms who deny everything except their own pastor's opinons?

---

So, this has been your repeated argument against sola scriptura, your argument being that since Baptists, Pentacostals, Calvinists, Lutherans, etc. all have varying beliefs it means that sola scriptura leads to confusion and division among believers. And since Jesus did not want his believers to be divided, then it follows that sola scriptura is wrong. Do I have your view correct?

Assuming this is correct, I hope you realize that this argument is a fallacious non sequitur. It isn't an argument against sola scriptura, but rather an argument against personal, individual layperson interpretation of Scripture, in favor of a central interpretive authority that tells all believers what to believe. Neither of these preclude sola scriptura. You're dealing with the issue of authority over interpretation, not sola scriptura.

Do I have your positions correct, and do you agree with this? I don't want to move on further and answer your questions until I'm sure we agree so far.

---

I am not arguing against sola scriptura in the narrow sense of "Scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice."

Text by itself never interprets itself. Hermeneutics, the rules and methods of interpreting Scripture, are built into how anyone reads the Bible. It's a built in problem that we can't escape.

My critique is about how sola scriptura functions in practice: when you remove a central, divinely sanctioned interpretive authority, sola scriptura almost inevitably leads to subjective, conflicting interpretations, and we can see this historically in the massive fragmentation among Protestants.

The issue is not just personal interpretation; it's who has the authority to bind the faithful in truth.

So I agree with your distinction: the problem is not sola scriptura per se, but the lack of centralized, apostolic authority to interpret Scripture rightly. My point is that historically, sola scriptura has functioned in a way that fails to preserve the unity and obedience Jesus intended, which is why I critique it.

If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding, why does it produce mutually contradictory theologies all claiming to be biblical? Either only one is correct, in which case Scripture alone isn't actually self-interpreting, authority is needed to determine which interpretation is right. Or all of them are wrong in some way, in which case Scripture alone fails to prevent doctrinal error.

---

Let's be clear - you are still mixing concepts. You aren't actually arguing against how sola scriptura "functions in practice", you are still arguing authority over interpretation. Because even if you did not adhere to sola scriptura and you included tradition as an infallible authority, the result can still be conflicting interpretations and fragmentation. The traditions themselves must also be interpreted, not to mention it must be decided which tradition from which church father is authoritative and which are not, as well as who gets to decide.

Let's also clear up your definition of sola scriptura: it is NOT defined as "scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice". This is a common error in understanding. Sola scriptura, simply defined, is the principle that Scripture is the only infallible authority over Christian faith and practice. Sola scriptura does not preclude other kinds of authority that believers can choose to bind themselves to. But it holds that those authorities are always under the authority of scripture, because they are not in of themselves infallible, and therefore always subject to questioning and challenge.

In addition, you are also incorrect that sola scriptura "guarantees correct understanding". Sola scriptura has nothing to do with infallibility of interpretation and understanding.

Do you agree with all this? I don't want to move on until we agree to the concept first, otherwise it's just not going to be productive.

The reason these are vitally important to clear up is that so many people shoot down sola scriptura by using straw men arguments like these, illustrating a lack of understanding of the concept (and/or dishonesty, which I'm not accusing you of). What's worse, is that many don't even seem to want to correct their misunderstanding, and they just keep repeating the same flawed argument over and over, even after I've corrected them. THAT would be dishonesty, or at the least, laziness.

---

Let's be clear: I'm not misrepresenting sola scriptura. I understand it as the principle that Scripture is the only infallible authority, and that other authorities (tradition, pastors, councils) are always subordinate and subject to questioning. I also accept that sola scriptura does not guarantee correct interpretation.

So my critique isn't about misdefining sola scriptura, it's about the practical consequences of leaving interpretation under Scripture alone without a binding interpretive authority. History shows that when Christians are left to interpret Scripture individually (even with non-infallible authorities), it produces massive fragmentation, doctrinal contradiction, and competing claims of truth.

Interpretation entirely unbound by a central authority, even while formally affirming Scripture as infallible, does not prevent confusion or disunity. IMO, that's a fatal problem. I think by the end of the century you will see the vast majority of Protestants and Catholics affirming secular sinful and woke/progressive ideas. Both of these bodies broke away from the early church and have adopted their own authorities in place of apostolic tradition. There obviously needs to be an authority that binds everyone together and shuts this crap down so that people aren't lead into being degenerate sinners thinking they're holy.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Do you anti-sola scripturists understand that sola scriptura does NOT preclude a central interpretive authority? Sola scriptura does not mean "self interpretation". And do you realize that "sola opinari" exists in RC and Orthodoxy, but instead of it being your own opinion, you're submitting and binding yourself to the opinions of others?

For as long and as vehemently you guys have argued against sola scriptura, I thought that by now you'd make some kind of effort to finally understand what it means. Tribe over truth, that's all you guys do.

---

Everyone relies on some form of authority…that's not in dispute. The real question is which authority, and how its legitimacy is grounded?

Under sola scriptura, you ultimately rely on your tradition's interpretive framework (whether that's Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.). Even if you claim a "central interpretive authority," that authority only exists because you've judged it to be the right one based on your own interpretation of Scripture. The final court is still the individual or chosen denomination.

Orthodoxy grounds authority differently:
in the historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed.

So the contrast isn't "self-interpretation vs. submitting to others' opinions."It's:

You: an authority structure your tradition created centuries after the apostles.

Us: the authority structure that the apostles' own disciples lived under and passed down.

Did Jesus not foresee that there would be squabbles and disputes in the church and he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anyone to an interpretation? So it's up to everyone's DIY with every generation having to reinvent the wheel?

---

I know that's what "orthodoxy" likes to allege. The problem is, Orthodoxy doesn't have a historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed. And where early church writings exist, they diverge significantly with one another. So there really is no consistent, continuous public witness. The practices of the early churches diverged almost as wildly as today's denominations. Hell, Catholic tradition has changed dramatically over the last 2,000 years.

This is of course why scripture is of such pivotal importance, and takes precedence over wildly divergent tradition.

---

Can you guys tell me who has it right?

Baptists who deny sacraments?
Petnacostals who deny creeds?
Calvinists who deny free will?
Lutherans who contradict all of them?
Non denoms who deny everything except their own pastor's opinons?

---

So, this has been your repeated argument against sola scriptura, your argument being that since Baptists, Pentacostals, Calvinists, Lutherans, etc. all have varying beliefs it means that sola scriptura leads to confusion and division among believers. And since Jesus did not want his believers to be divided, then it follows that sola scriptura is wrong. Do I have your view correct?

Assuming this is correct, I hope you realize that this argument is a fallacious non sequitur. It isn't an argument against sola scriptura, but rather an argument against personal, individual layperson interpretation of Scripture, in favor of a central interpretive authority that tells all believers what to believe. Neither of these preclude sola scriptura. You're dealing with the issue of authority over interpretation, not sola scriptura.

Do I have your positions correct, and do you agree with this? I don't want to move on further and answer your questions until I'm sure we agree so far.

---

I am not arguing against sola scriptura in the narrow sense of "Scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice."

Text by itself never interprets itself. Hermeneutics, the rules and methods of interpreting Scripture, are built into how anyone reads the Bible. It's a built in problem that we can't escape.

My critique is about how sola scriptura functions in practice: when you remove a central, divinely sanctioned interpretive authority, sola scriptura almost inevitably leads to subjective, conflicting interpretations, and we can see this historically in the massive fragmentation among Protestants.

The issue is not just personal interpretation; it's who has the authority to bind the faithful in truth.

So I agree with your distinction: the problem is not sola scriptura per se, but the lack of centralized, apostolic authority to interpret Scripture rightly. My point is that historically, sola scriptura has functioned in a way that fails to preserve the unity and obedience Jesus intended, which is why I critique it.

If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding, why does it produce mutually contradictory theologies all claiming to be biblical? Either only one is correct, in which case Scripture alone isn't actually self-interpreting, authority is needed to determine which interpretation is right. Or all of them are wrong in some way, in which case Scripture alone fails to prevent doctrinal error.

---

Let's be clear - you are still mixing concepts. You aren't actually arguing against how sola scriptura "functions in practice", you are still arguing authority over interpretation. Because even if you did not adhere to sola scriptura and you included tradition as an infallible authority, the result can still be conflicting interpretations and fragmentation. The traditions themselves must also be interpreted, not to mention it must be decided which tradition from which church father is authoritative and which are not, as well as who gets to decide.

Let's also clear up your definition of sola scriptura: it is NOT defined as "scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice". This is a common error in understanding. Sola scriptura, simply defined, is the principle that Scripture is the only infallible authority over Christian faith and practice. Sola scriptura does not preclude other kinds of authority that believers can choose to bind themselves to. But it holds that those authorities are always under the authority of scripture, because they are not in of themselves infallible, and therefore always subject to questioning and challenge.

In addition, you are also incorrect that sola scriptura "guarantees correct understanding". Sola scriptura has nothing to do with infallibility of interpretation and understanding.

Do you agree with all this? I don't want to move on until we agree to the concept first, otherwise it's just not going to be productive.

The reason these are vitally important to clear up is that so many people shoot down sola scriptura by using straw men arguments like these, illustrating a lack of understanding of the concept (and/or dishonesty, which I'm not accusing you of). What's worse, is that many don't even seem to want to correct their misunderstanding, and they just keep repeating the same flawed argument over and over, even after I've corrected them. THAT would be dishonesty, or at the least, laziness.

---

Let's be clear: I'm not misrepresenting sola scriptura. I understand it as the principle that Scripture is the only infallible authority, and that other authorities (tradition, pastors, councils) are always subordinate and subject to questioning. I also accept that sola scriptura does not guarantee correct interpretation.

So my critique isn't about misdefining sola scriptura, it's about the practical consequences of leaving interpretation under Scripture alone without a binding interpretive authority. History shows that when Christians are left to interpret Scripture individually (even with non-infallible authorities), it produces massive fragmentation, doctrinal contradiction, and competing claims of truth.

Interpretation entirely unbound by a central authority, even while formally affirming Scripture as infallible, does not prevent confusion or disunity. IMO, that's a fatal problem. I think by the end of the century you will see the vast majority of Protestants and Catholics affirming secular sinful and woke/progressive ideas. Both of these bodies broke away from the early church and have adopted their own authorities in place of apostolic tradition. There obviously needs to be an authority that binds everyone together and shuts this crap down so that people aren't lead into being degenerate sinners thinking they're holy.

---

Come on, Doc, let's be honest. You did misrepresent sola scriptura, and you did think that it guarantees correct understanding. These were your own words, for crying out loud:

"I am not arguing against sola scriptura in the narrow sense of "Scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice.""

"If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding, why does it produce mutually contradictory theologies all claiming to be biblical?"

We can't have an honest discussion without honesty.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Do you anti-sola scripturists understand that sola scriptura does NOT preclude a central interpretive authority? Sola scriptura does not mean "self interpretation". And do you realize that "sola opinari" exists in RC and Orthodoxy, but instead of it being your own opinion, you're submitting and binding yourself to the opinions of others?

For as long and as vehemently you guys have argued against sola scriptura, I thought that by now you'd make some kind of effort to finally understand what it means. Tribe over truth, that's all you guys do.

---

Everyone relies on some form of authority…that's not in dispute. The real question is which authority, and how its legitimacy is grounded?

Under sola scriptura, you ultimately rely on your tradition's interpretive framework (whether that's Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.). Even if you claim a "central interpretive authority," that authority only exists because you've judged it to be the right one based on your own interpretation of Scripture. The final court is still the individual or chosen denomination.

Orthodoxy grounds authority differently:
in the historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed.

So the contrast isn't "self-interpretation vs. submitting to others' opinions."It's:

You: an authority structure your tradition created centuries after the apostles.

Us: the authority structure that the apostles' own disciples lived under and passed down.

Did Jesus not foresee that there would be squabbles and disputes in the church and he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anyone to an interpretation? So it's up to everyone's DIY with every generation having to reinvent the wheel?

---

I know that's what "orthodoxy" likes to allege. The problem is, Orthodoxy doesn't have a historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed. And where early church writings exist, they diverge significantly with one another. So there really is no consistent, continuous public witness. The practices of the early churches diverged almost as wildly as today's denominations. Hell, Catholic tradition has changed dramatically over the last 2,000 years.

This is of course why scripture is of such pivotal importance, and takes precedence over wildly divergent tradition.

---

Can you guys tell me who has it right?

Baptists who deny sacraments?
Petnacostals who deny creeds?
Calvinists who deny free will?
Lutherans who contradict all of them?
Non denoms who deny everything except their own pastor's opinons?

---

So, this has been your repeated argument against sola scriptura, your argument being that since Baptists, Pentacostals, Calvinists, Lutherans, etc. all have varying beliefs it means that sola scriptura leads to confusion and division among believers. And since Jesus did not want his believers to be divided, then it follows that sola scriptura is wrong. Do I have your view correct?

Assuming this is correct, I hope you realize that this argument is a fallacious non sequitur. It isn't an argument against sola scriptura, but rather an argument against personal, individual layperson interpretation of Scripture, in favor of a central interpretive authority that tells all believers what to believe. Neither of these preclude sola scriptura. You're dealing with the issue of authority over interpretation, not sola scriptura.

Do I have your positions correct, and do you agree with this? I don't want to move on further and answer your questions until I'm sure we agree so far.

---

I am not arguing against sola scriptura in the narrow sense of "Scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice."

Text by itself never interprets itself. Hermeneutics, the rules and methods of interpreting Scripture, are built into how anyone reads the Bible. It's a built in problem that we can't escape.

My critique is about how sola scriptura functions in practice: when you remove a central, divinely sanctioned interpretive authority, sola scriptura almost inevitably leads to subjective, conflicting interpretations, and we can see this historically in the massive fragmentation among Protestants.

The issue is not just personal interpretation; it's who has the authority to bind the faithful in truth.

So I agree with your distinction: the problem is not sola scriptura per se, but the lack of centralized, apostolic authority to interpret Scripture rightly. My point is that historically, sola scriptura has functioned in a way that fails to preserve the unity and obedience Jesus intended, which is why I critique it.

If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding, why does it produce mutually contradictory theologies all claiming to be biblical? Either only one is correct, in which case Scripture alone isn't actually self-interpreting, authority is needed to determine which interpretation is right. Or all of them are wrong in some way, in which case Scripture alone fails to prevent doctrinal error.

---

Let's be clear - you are still mixing concepts. You aren't actually arguing against how sola scriptura "functions in practice", you are still arguing authority over interpretation. Because even if you did not adhere to sola scriptura and you included tradition as an infallible authority, the result can still be conflicting interpretations and fragmentation. The traditions themselves must also be interpreted, not to mention it must be decided which tradition from which church father is authoritative and which are not, as well as who gets to decide.

Let's also clear up your definition of sola scriptura: it is NOT defined as "scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice". This is a common error in understanding. Sola scriptura, simply defined, is the principle that Scripture is the only infallible authority over Christian faith and practice. Sola scriptura does not preclude other kinds of authority that believers can choose to bind themselves to. But it holds that those authorities are always under the authority of scripture, because they are not in of themselves infallible, and therefore always subject to questioning and challenge.

In addition, you are also incorrect that sola scriptura "guarantees correct understanding". Sola scriptura has nothing to do with infallibility of interpretation and understanding.

Do you agree with all this? I don't want to move on until we agree to the concept first, otherwise it's just not going to be productive.

The reason these are vitally important to clear up is that so many people shoot down sola scriptura by using straw men arguments like these, illustrating a lack of understanding of the concept (and/or dishonesty, which I'm not accusing you of). What's worse, is that many don't even seem to want to correct their misunderstanding, and they just keep repeating the same flawed argument over and over, even after I've corrected them. THAT would be dishonesty, or at the least, laziness.

---

Let's be clear: I'm not misrepresenting sola scriptura. I understand it as the principle that Scripture is the only infallible authority, and that other authorities (tradition, pastors, councils) are always subordinate and subject to questioning. I also accept that sola scriptura does not guarantee correct interpretation.

So my critique isn't about misdefining sola scriptura, it's about the practical consequences of leaving interpretation under Scripture alone without a binding interpretive authority. History shows that when Christians are left to interpret Scripture individually (even with non-infallible authorities), it produces massive fragmentation, doctrinal contradiction, and competing claims of truth.

Interpretation entirely unbound by a central authority, even while formally affirming Scripture as infallible, does not prevent confusion or disunity. IMO, that's a fatal problem. I think by the end of the century you will see the vast majority of Protestants and Catholics affirming secular sinful and woke/progressive ideas. Both of these bodies broke away from the early church and have adopted their own authorities in place of apostolic tradition. There obviously needs to be an authority that binds everyone together and shuts this crap down so that people aren't lead into being degenerate sinners thinking they're holy.

---

Come on, Doc, let's be honest. You did misrepresent sola scriptura, and you did think that it guarantees correct understanding. These were your own words, for crying out loud:

"I am not arguing against sola scriptura in the narrow sense of "Scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice.""

"If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding, why does it produce mutually contradictory theologies all claiming to be biblical?"

We can't have an honest discussion without honesty.

---

You're treating a hypothetical I raised as a personal belief I hold.

That's called a modal fallacy.

When I said, "If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding…" I wasn't stating my own belief, I was highlighting that IF the principle functioned as many Protestants assume in practice, the massive doctrinal fragmentation makes no sense.

Did you misread me or are you pretending to misread me?

You haven't answered any of my questions.
What's the correct denomination?
Why are there so many radically different interpretations?

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Do you anti-sola scripturists understand that sola scriptura does NOT preclude a central interpretive authority? Sola scriptura does not mean "self interpretation". And do you realize that "sola opinari" exists in RC and Orthodoxy, but instead of it being your own opinion, you're submitting and binding yourself to the opinions of others?

For as long and as vehemently you guys have argued against sola scriptura, I thought that by now you'd make some kind of effort to finally understand what it means. Tribe over truth, that's all you guys do.

---

Everyone relies on some form of authority…that's not in dispute. The real question is which authority, and how its legitimacy is grounded?

Under sola scriptura, you ultimately rely on your tradition's interpretive framework (whether that's Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.). Even if you claim a "central interpretive authority," that authority only exists because you've judged it to be the right one based on your own interpretation of Scripture. The final court is still the individual or chosen denomination.

Orthodoxy grounds authority differently:
in the historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed.

So the contrast isn't "self-interpretation vs. submitting to others' opinions."It's:

You: an authority structure your tradition created centuries after the apostles.

Us: the authority structure that the apostles' own disciples lived under and passed down.

Did Jesus not foresee that there would be squabbles and disputes in the church and he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anyone to an interpretation? So it's up to everyone's DIY with every generation having to reinvent the wheel?

---

I know that's what "orthodoxy" likes to allege. The problem is, Orthodoxy doesn't have a historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed. And where early church writings exist, they diverge significantly with one another. So there really is no consistent, continuous public witness. The practices of the early churches diverged almost as wildly as today's denominations. Hell, Catholic tradition has changed dramatically over the last 2,000 years.

This is of course why scripture is of such pivotal importance, and takes precedence over wildly divergent tradition.

---

Can you guys tell me who has it right?

Baptists who deny sacraments?
Petnacostals who deny creeds?
Calvinists who deny free will?
Lutherans who contradict all of them?
Non denoms who deny everything except their own pastor's opinons?

---

So, this has been your repeated argument against sola scriptura, your argument being that since Baptists, Pentacostals, Calvinists, Lutherans, etc. all have varying beliefs it means that sola scriptura leads to confusion and division among believers. And since Jesus did not want his believers to be divided, then it follows that sola scriptura is wrong. Do I have your view correct?

Assuming this is correct, I hope you realize that this argument is a fallacious non sequitur. It isn't an argument against sola scriptura, but rather an argument against personal, individual layperson interpretation of Scripture, in favor of a central interpretive authority that tells all believers what to believe. Neither of these preclude sola scriptura. You're dealing with the issue of authority over interpretation, not sola scriptura.

Do I have your positions correct, and do you agree with this? I don't want to move on further and answer your questions until I'm sure we agree so far.

---

I am not arguing against sola scriptura in the narrow sense of "Scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice."

Text by itself never interprets itself. Hermeneutics, the rules and methods of interpreting Scripture, are built into how anyone reads the Bible. It's a built in problem that we can't escape.

My critique is about how sola scriptura functions in practice: when you remove a central, divinely sanctioned interpretive authority, sola scriptura almost inevitably leads to subjective, conflicting interpretations, and we can see this historically in the massive fragmentation among Protestants.

The issue is not just personal interpretation; it's who has the authority to bind the faithful in truth.

So I agree with your distinction: the problem is not sola scriptura per se, but the lack of centralized, apostolic authority to interpret Scripture rightly. My point is that historically, sola scriptura has functioned in a way that fails to preserve the unity and obedience Jesus intended, which is why I critique it.

If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding, why does it produce mutually contradictory theologies all claiming to be biblical? Either only one is correct, in which case Scripture alone isn't actually self-interpreting, authority is needed to determine which interpretation is right. Or all of them are wrong in some way, in which case Scripture alone fails to prevent doctrinal error.

---

Let's be clear - you are still mixing concepts. You aren't actually arguing against how sola scriptura "functions in practice", you are still arguing authority over interpretation. Because even if you did not adhere to sola scriptura and you included tradition as an infallible authority, the result can still be conflicting interpretations and fragmentation. The traditions themselves must also be interpreted, not to mention it must be decided which tradition from which church father is authoritative and which are not, as well as who gets to decide.

Let's also clear up your definition of sola scriptura: it is NOT defined as "scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice". This is a common error in understanding. Sola scriptura, simply defined, is the principle that Scripture is the only infallible authority over Christian faith and practice. Sola scriptura does not preclude other kinds of authority that believers can choose to bind themselves to. But it holds that those authorities are always under the authority of scripture, because they are not in of themselves infallible, and therefore always subject to questioning and challenge.

In addition, you are also incorrect that sola scriptura "guarantees correct understanding". Sola scriptura has nothing to do with infallibility of interpretation and understanding.

Do you agree with all this? I don't want to move on until we agree to the concept first, otherwise it's just not going to be productive.

The reason these are vitally important to clear up is that so many people shoot down sola scriptura by using straw men arguments like these, illustrating a lack of understanding of the concept (and/or dishonesty, which I'm not accusing you of). What's worse, is that many don't even seem to want to correct their misunderstanding, and they just keep repeating the same flawed argument over and over, even after I've corrected them. THAT would be dishonesty, or at the least, laziness.

---

Let's be clear: I'm not misrepresenting sola scriptura. I understand it as the principle that Scripture is the only infallible authority, and that other authorities (tradition, pastors, councils) are always subordinate and subject to questioning. I also accept that sola scriptura does not guarantee correct interpretation.

So my critique isn't about misdefining sola scriptura, it's about the practical consequences of leaving interpretation under Scripture alone without a binding interpretive authority. History shows that when Christians are left to interpret Scripture individually (even with non-infallible authorities), it produces massive fragmentation, doctrinal contradiction, and competing claims of truth.

Interpretation entirely unbound by a central authority, even while formally affirming Scripture as infallible, does not prevent confusion or disunity. IMO, that's a fatal problem. I think by the end of the century you will see the vast majority of Protestants and Catholics affirming secular sinful and woke/progressive ideas. Both of these bodies broke away from the early church and have adopted their own authorities in place of apostolic tradition. There obviously needs to be an authority that binds everyone together and shuts this crap down so that people aren't lead into being degenerate sinners thinking they're holy.

---

Come on, Doc, let's be honest. You did misrepresent sola scriptura, and you did think that it guarantees correct understanding. These were your own words, for crying out loud:

"I am not arguing against sola scriptura in the narrow sense of "Scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice.""

"If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding, why does it produce mutually contradictory theologies all claiming to be biblical?"

We can't have an honest discussion without honesty.

---

You're treating a hypothetical I raised as a personal belief I hold.

That's called a modal fallacy.

When I said, "If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding…" I wasn't stating my own belief, I was highlighting that IF the principle functioned as many Protestants assume in practice, the massive doctrinal fragmentation makes no sense.

Did you misread me or are you pretending to misread me?

You haven't answered any of my questions.
What's the correct denomination?
Why are there so many radically different interpretations?

---

But who's saying that sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding?

It isn't a fallacy if you make an assertion like that, and then for people to think you are telling us your own understanding, especially since I or no one else said that.

Regardless, you DID define sola scriptura wrong. I'm merely trying to correct your definition so we can start with the same understanding. If you didn't suggest that sola scriptura also guaranteed correct understanding, then okay, let's go with it and move on. Remember, I AM trying to answer your questions, but it'd be pointless if we don't set the record straight first: you do acknowledge then, the definition of sola scriptura as I have presented it, and that it does not guarantee correct understanding, correct?

If so, then do you understand that your argument about denominations having varying and contradicting interpretations leading to division is NOT an argument against sola scriptura, that in fact it doesn't have anything to do with it, but rather that it's an argument about the authority over interpretation? Agreed, or no?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Do you anti-sola scripturists understand that sola scriptura does NOT preclude a central interpretive authority? Sola scriptura does not mean "self interpretation". And do you realize that "sola opinari" exists in RC and Orthodoxy, but instead of it being your own opinion, you're submitting and binding yourself to the opinions of others?

For as long and as vehemently you guys have argued against sola scriptura, I thought that by now you'd make some kind of effort to finally understand what it means. Tribe over truth, that's all you guys do.

---

Everyone relies on some form of authority…that's not in dispute. The real question is which authority, and how its legitimacy is grounded?

Under sola scriptura, you ultimately rely on your tradition's interpretive framework (whether that's Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.). Even if you claim a "central interpretive authority," that authority only exists because you've judged it to be the right one based on your own interpretation of Scripture. The final court is still the individual or chosen denomination.

Orthodoxy grounds authority differently:
in the historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed.

So the contrast isn't "self-interpretation vs. submitting to others' opinions."It's:

You: an authority structure your tradition created centuries after the apostles.

Us: the authority structure that the apostles' own disciples lived under and passed down.

Did Jesus not foresee that there would be squabbles and disputes in the church and he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anyone to an interpretation? So it's up to everyone's DIY with every generation having to reinvent the wheel?

---

I know that's what "orthodoxy" likes to allege. The problem is, Orthodoxy doesn't have a historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed. And where early church writings exist, they diverge significantly with one another. So there really is no consistent, continuous public witness. The practices of the early churches diverged almost as wildly as today's denominations. Hell, Catholic tradition has changed dramatically over the last 2,000 years.

This is of course why scripture is of such pivotal importance, and takes precedence over wildly divergent tradition.

---

Can you guys tell me who has it right?

Baptists who deny sacraments?
Petnacostals who deny creeds?
Calvinists who deny free will?
Lutherans who contradict all of them?
Non denoms who deny everything except their own pastor's opinons?

---

So, this has been your repeated argument against sola scriptura, your argument being that since Baptists, Pentacostals, Calvinists, Lutherans, etc. all have varying beliefs it means that sola scriptura leads to confusion and division among believers. And since Jesus did not want his believers to be divided, then it follows that sola scriptura is wrong. Do I have your view correct?

Assuming this is correct, I hope you realize that this argument is a fallacious non sequitur. It isn't an argument against sola scriptura, but rather an argument against personal, individual layperson interpretation of Scripture, in favor of a central interpretive authority that tells all believers what to believe. Neither of these preclude sola scriptura. You're dealing with the issue of authority over interpretation, not sola scriptura.

Do I have your positions correct, and do you agree with this? I don't want to move on further and answer your questions until I'm sure we agree so far.

---

I am not arguing against sola scriptura in the narrow sense of "Scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice."

Text by itself never interprets itself. Hermeneutics, the rules and methods of interpreting Scripture, are built into how anyone reads the Bible. It's a built in problem that we can't escape.

My critique is about how sola scriptura functions in practice: when you remove a central, divinely sanctioned interpretive authority, sola scriptura almost inevitably leads to subjective, conflicting interpretations, and we can see this historically in the massive fragmentation among Protestants.

The issue is not just personal interpretation; it's who has the authority to bind the faithful in truth.

So I agree with your distinction: the problem is not sola scriptura per se, but the lack of centralized, apostolic authority to interpret Scripture rightly. My point is that historically, sola scriptura has functioned in a way that fails to preserve the unity and obedience Jesus intended, which is why I critique it.

If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding, why does it produce mutually contradictory theologies all claiming to be biblical? Either only one is correct, in which case Scripture alone isn't actually self-interpreting, authority is needed to determine which interpretation is right. Or all of them are wrong in some way, in which case Scripture alone fails to prevent doctrinal error.

---

Let's be clear - you are still mixing concepts. You aren't actually arguing against how sola scriptura "functions in practice", you are still arguing authority over interpretation. Because even if you did not adhere to sola scriptura and you included tradition as an infallible authority, the result can still be conflicting interpretations and fragmentation. The traditions themselves must also be interpreted, not to mention it must be decided which tradition from which church father is authoritative and which are not, as well as who gets to decide.

Let's also clear up your definition of sola scriptura: it is NOT defined as "scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice". This is a common error in understanding. Sola scriptura, simply defined, is the principle that Scripture is the only infallible authority over Christian faith and practice. Sola scriptura does not preclude other kinds of authority that believers can choose to bind themselves to. But it holds that those authorities are always under the authority of scripture, because they are not in of themselves infallible, and therefore always subject to questioning and challenge.

In addition, you are also incorrect that sola scriptura "guarantees correct understanding". Sola scriptura has nothing to do with infallibility of interpretation and understanding.

Do you agree with all this? I don't want to move on until we agree to the concept first, otherwise it's just not going to be productive.

The reason these are vitally important to clear up is that so many people shoot down sola scriptura by using straw men arguments like these, illustrating a lack of understanding of the concept (and/or dishonesty, which I'm not accusing you of). What's worse, is that many don't even seem to want to correct their misunderstanding, and they just keep repeating the same flawed argument over and over, even after I've corrected them. THAT would be dishonesty, or at the least, laziness.

---

Let's be clear: I'm not misrepresenting sola scriptura. I understand it as the principle that Scripture is the only infallible authority, and that other authorities (tradition, pastors, councils) are always subordinate and subject to questioning. I also accept that sola scriptura does not guarantee correct interpretation.

So my critique isn't about misdefining sola scriptura, it's about the practical consequences of leaving interpretation under Scripture alone without a binding interpretive authority. History shows that when Christians are left to interpret Scripture individually (even with non-infallible authorities), it produces massive fragmentation, doctrinal contradiction, and competing claims of truth.

Interpretation entirely unbound by a central authority, even while formally affirming Scripture as infallible, does not prevent confusion or disunity. IMO, that's a fatal problem. I think by the end of the century you will see the vast majority of Protestants and Catholics affirming secular sinful and woke/progressive ideas. Both of these bodies broke away from the early church and have adopted their own authorities in place of apostolic tradition. There obviously needs to be an authority that binds everyone together and shuts this crap down so that people aren't lead into being degenerate sinners thinking they're holy.

---

Come on, Doc, let's be honest. You did misrepresent sola scriptura, and you did think that it guarantees correct understanding. These were your own words, for crying out loud:

"I am not arguing against sola scriptura in the narrow sense of "Scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice.""

"If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding, why does it produce mutually contradictory theologies all claiming to be biblical?"

We can't have an honest discussion without honesty.

---

You're treating a hypothetical I raised as a personal belief I hold.

That's called a modal fallacy.

When I said, "If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding…" I wasn't stating my own belief, I was highlighting that IF the principle functioned as many Protestants assume in practice, the massive doctrinal fragmentation makes no sense.

Did you misread me or are you pretending to misread me?

You haven't answered any of my questions.
What's the correct denomination?
Why are there so many radically different interpretations?

---

But who's saying that sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding?

It isn't a fallacy if you make an assertion like that, and then for people to think you are telling us your own understanding, especially since I or no one else said that.

Regardless, you DID define sola scriptura wrong. I'm merely trying to correct your definition so we can start with the same understanding. If you didn't suggest that sola scriptura also guaranteed correct understanding, then okay, let's go with it and move on. Remember, I AM trying to answer your questions, but it'd be pointless if we don't set the record straight first: you do acknowledge then, the definition of sola scriptura as I have presented it, and that it does not guarantee correct understanding, correct?

If so, then do you understand that your argument about denominations having varying and contradicting interpretations leading to division is NOT an argument against sola scriptura, that in fact it doesn't have anything to do with it, but rather that it's an argument about the authority over interpretation? Agreed, or no?

---

I'm not disputing your definition of sola scriptura.

You're treating my critique of how sola scriptura functions in practice as if it were a critique of the definition itself.

I am indeed critiquing the lack of binding interpretive authority.
But that's not separate from sola scriptura in practice, it's the practical consequence of adopting it as your governing principle.

Sola scriptura and interpretive autonomy can't be cleanly separated in the real world. Do you agree?

At some point you're going to have to explain why your theology is correct. You can't avoid that.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Do you anti-sola scripturists understand that sola scriptura does NOT preclude a central interpretive authority? Sola scriptura does not mean "self interpretation". And do you realize that "sola opinari" exists in RC and Orthodoxy, but instead of it being your own opinion, you're submitting and binding yourself to the opinions of others?

For as long and as vehemently you guys have argued against sola scriptura, I thought that by now you'd make some kind of effort to finally understand what it means. Tribe over truth, that's all you guys do.

---

Everyone relies on some form of authority…that's not in dispute. The real question is which authority, and how its legitimacy is grounded?

Under sola scriptura, you ultimately rely on your tradition's interpretive framework (whether that's Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.). Even if you claim a "central interpretive authority," that authority only exists because you've judged it to be the right one based on your own interpretation of Scripture. The final court is still the individual or chosen denomination.

Orthodoxy grounds authority differently:
in the historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed.

So the contrast isn't "self-interpretation vs. submitting to others' opinions."It's:

You: an authority structure your tradition created centuries after the apostles.

Us: the authority structure that the apostles' own disciples lived under and passed down.

Did Jesus not foresee that there would be squabbles and disputes in the church and he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anyone to an interpretation? So it's up to everyone's DIY with every generation having to reinvent the wheel?

---

I know that's what "orthodoxy" likes to allege. The problem is, Orthodoxy doesn't have a historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed. And where early church writings exist, they diverge significantly with one another. So there really is no consistent, continuous public witness. The practices of the early churches diverged almost as wildly as today's denominations. Hell, Catholic tradition has changed dramatically over the last 2,000 years.

This is of course why scripture is of such pivotal importance, and takes precedence over wildly divergent tradition.

---

Can you guys tell me who has it right?

Baptists who deny sacraments?
Petnacostals who deny creeds?
Calvinists who deny free will?
Lutherans who contradict all of them?
Non denoms who deny everything except their own pastor's opinons?

---

So, this has been your repeated argument against sola scriptura, your argument being that since Baptists, Pentacostals, Calvinists, Lutherans, etc. all have varying beliefs it means that sola scriptura leads to confusion and division among believers. And since Jesus did not want his believers to be divided, then it follows that sola scriptura is wrong. Do I have your view correct?

Assuming this is correct, I hope you realize that this argument is a fallacious non sequitur. It isn't an argument against sola scriptura, but rather an argument against personal, individual layperson interpretation of Scripture, in favor of a central interpretive authority that tells all believers what to believe. Neither of these preclude sola scriptura. You're dealing with the issue of authority over interpretation, not sola scriptura.

Do I have your positions correct, and do you agree with this? I don't want to move on further and answer your questions until I'm sure we agree so far.

---

I am not arguing against sola scriptura in the narrow sense of "Scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice."

Text by itself never interprets itself. Hermeneutics, the rules and methods of interpreting Scripture, are built into how anyone reads the Bible. It's a built in problem that we can't escape.

My critique is about how sola scriptura functions in practice: when you remove a central, divinely sanctioned interpretive authority, sola scriptura almost inevitably leads to subjective, conflicting interpretations, and we can see this historically in the massive fragmentation among Protestants.

The issue is not just personal interpretation; it's who has the authority to bind the faithful in truth.

So I agree with your distinction: the problem is not sola scriptura per se, but the lack of centralized, apostolic authority to interpret Scripture rightly. My point is that historically, sola scriptura has functioned in a way that fails to preserve the unity and obedience Jesus intended, which is why I critique it.

If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding, why does it produce mutually contradictory theologies all claiming to be biblical? Either only one is correct, in which case Scripture alone isn't actually self-interpreting, authority is needed to determine which interpretation is right. Or all of them are wrong in some way, in which case Scripture alone fails to prevent doctrinal error.

---

Let's be clear - you are still mixing concepts. You aren't actually arguing against how sola scriptura "functions in practice", you are still arguing authority over interpretation. Because even if you did not adhere to sola scriptura and you included tradition as an infallible authority, the result can still be conflicting interpretations and fragmentation. The traditions themselves must also be interpreted, not to mention it must be decided which tradition from which church father is authoritative and which are not, as well as who gets to decide.

Let's also clear up your definition of sola scriptura: it is NOT defined as "scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice". This is a common error in understanding. Sola scriptura, simply defined, is the principle that Scripture is the only infallible authority over Christian faith and practice. Sola scriptura does not preclude other kinds of authority that believers can choose to bind themselves to. But it holds that those authorities are always under the authority of scripture, because they are not in of themselves infallible, and therefore always subject to questioning and challenge.

In addition, you are also incorrect that sola scriptura "guarantees correct understanding". Sola scriptura has nothing to do with infallibility of interpretation and understanding.

Do you agree with all this? I don't want to move on until we agree to the concept first, otherwise it's just not going to be productive.

The reason these are vitally important to clear up is that so many people shoot down sola scriptura by using straw men arguments like these, illustrating a lack of understanding of the concept (and/or dishonesty, which I'm not accusing you of). What's worse, is that many don't even seem to want to correct their misunderstanding, and they just keep repeating the same flawed argument over and over, even after I've corrected them. THAT would be dishonesty, or at the least, laziness.

---

Let's be clear: I'm not misrepresenting sola scriptura. I understand it as the principle that Scripture is the only infallible authority, and that other authorities (tradition, pastors, councils) are always subordinate and subject to questioning. I also accept that sola scriptura does not guarantee correct interpretation.

So my critique isn't about misdefining sola scriptura, it's about the practical consequences of leaving interpretation under Scripture alone without a binding interpretive authority. History shows that when Christians are left to interpret Scripture individually (even with non-infallible authorities), it produces massive fragmentation, doctrinal contradiction, and competing claims of truth.

Interpretation entirely unbound by a central authority, even while formally affirming Scripture as infallible, does not prevent confusion or disunity. IMO, that's a fatal problem. I think by the end of the century you will see the vast majority of Protestants and Catholics affirming secular sinful and woke/progressive ideas. Both of these bodies broke away from the early church and have adopted their own authorities in place of apostolic tradition. There obviously needs to be an authority that binds everyone together and shuts this crap down so that people aren't lead into being degenerate sinners thinking they're holy.

---

Come on, Doc, let's be honest. You did misrepresent sola scriptura, and you did think that it guarantees correct understanding. These were your own words, for crying out loud:

"I am not arguing against sola scriptura in the narrow sense of "Scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice.""

"If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding, why does it produce mutually contradictory theologies all claiming to be biblical?"

We can't have an honest discussion without honesty.

---

You're treating a hypothetical I raised as a personal belief I hold.

That's called a modal fallacy.

When I said, "If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding…" I wasn't stating my own belief, I was highlighting that IF the principle functioned as many Protestants assume in practice, the massive doctrinal fragmentation makes no sense.

Did you misread me or are you pretending to misread me?

You haven't answered any of my questions.
What's the correct denomination?
Why are there so many radically different interpretations?

---

But who's saying that sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding?

It isn't a fallacy if you make an assertion like that, and then for people to think you are telling us your own understanding, especially since I or no one else said that.

Regardless, you DID define sola scriptura wrong. I'm merely trying to correct your definition so we can start with the same understanding. If you didn't suggest that sola scriptura also guaranteed correct understanding, then okay, let's go with it and move on. Remember, I AM trying to answer your questions, but it'd be pointless if we don't set the record straight first: you do acknowledge then, the definition of sola scriptura as I have presented it, and that it does not guarantee correct understanding, correct?

If so, then do you understand that your argument about denominations having varying and contradicting interpretations leading to division is NOT an argument against sola scriptura, that in fact it doesn't have anything to do with it, but rather that it's an argument about the authority over interpretation? Agreed, or no?

---

I'm not disputing your definition of sola scriptura.

You're treating my critique of how sola scriptura functions in practice as if it were a critique of the definition itself.

I am indeed critiquing the lack of binding interpretive authority.
But that's not separate from sola scriptura in practice, it's the practical consequence of adopting it as your governing principle.

Sola scriptura and interpretive autonomy can't be cleanly separated in the real world. Do you agree?

---

Yes, it IS separate from sola scriptura in practice. That is precisely the misunderstanding you have. Consider - a church with a central interpretive authority that adheres to sola scriptura will NOT have contradicting denominations, right? So, contradicting denominations is NOT a consequence of sola scriptura, it's the consequence of a lack of a central interpretive authority. To illustrate in another way: suppose protestantism adopted tradition in addition to Scripture as it's infallible binding authority, thus it abandons sola scriptura - without a central interpretive authority, you'd STILL get division, right? Because you're still interpreting it differently. So division into denominations is not a product of sola scriptura at all, it's soley due to not having one central, binding, interpretive authority for all believers.

What you're doing is what's commonly done, and that is to link sola scriptura with the number of divided denominations in Protestantism, and that's why you believe sola scriptura to be wrong. This is a fallacy. Do you see?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Do you anti-sola scripturists understand that sola scriptura does NOT preclude a central interpretive authority? Sola scriptura does not mean "self interpretation". And do you realize that "sola opinari" exists in RC and Orthodoxy, but instead of it being your own opinion, you're submitting and binding yourself to the opinions of others?

For as long and as vehemently you guys have argued against sola scriptura, I thought that by now you'd make some kind of effort to finally understand what it means. Tribe over truth, that's all you guys do.

---

Everyone relies on some form of authority…that's not in dispute. The real question is which authority, and how its legitimacy is grounded?

Under sola scriptura, you ultimately rely on your tradition's interpretive framework (whether that's Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.). Even if you claim a "central interpretive authority," that authority only exists because you've judged it to be the right one based on your own interpretation of Scripture. The final court is still the individual or chosen denomination.

Orthodoxy grounds authority differently:
in the historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed.

So the contrast isn't "self-interpretation vs. submitting to others' opinions."It's:

You: an authority structure your tradition created centuries after the apostles.

Us: the authority structure that the apostles' own disciples lived under and passed down.

Did Jesus not foresee that there would be squabbles and disputes in the church and he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anyone to an interpretation? So it's up to everyone's DIY with every generation having to reinvent the wheel?

---

I know that's what "orthodoxy" likes to allege. The problem is, Orthodoxy doesn't have a historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed. And where early church writings exist, they diverge significantly with one another. So there really is no consistent, continuous public witness. The practices of the early churches diverged almost as wildly as today's denominations. Hell, Catholic tradition has changed dramatically over the last 2,000 years.

This is of course why scripture is of such pivotal importance, and takes precedence over wildly divergent tradition.

---

Can you guys tell me who has it right?

Baptists who deny sacraments?
Petnacostals who deny creeds?
Calvinists who deny free will?
Lutherans who contradict all of them?
Non denoms who deny everything except their own pastor's opinons?

---

So, this has been your repeated argument against sola scriptura, your argument being that since Baptists, Pentacostals, Calvinists, Lutherans, etc. all have varying beliefs it means that sola scriptura leads to confusion and division among believers. And since Jesus did not want his believers to be divided, then it follows that sola scriptura is wrong. Do I have your view correct?

Assuming this is correct, I hope you realize that this argument is a fallacious non sequitur. It isn't an argument against sola scriptura, but rather an argument against personal, individual layperson interpretation of Scripture, in favor of a central interpretive authority that tells all believers what to believe. Neither of these preclude sola scriptura. You're dealing with the issue of authority over interpretation, not sola scriptura.

Do I have your positions correct, and do you agree with this? I don't want to move on further and answer your questions until I'm sure we agree so far.

---

I am not arguing against sola scriptura in the narrow sense of "Scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice."

Text by itself never interprets itself. Hermeneutics, the rules and methods of interpreting Scripture, are built into how anyone reads the Bible. It's a built in problem that we can't escape.

My critique is about how sola scriptura functions in practice: when you remove a central, divinely sanctioned interpretive authority, sola scriptura almost inevitably leads to subjective, conflicting interpretations, and we can see this historically in the massive fragmentation among Protestants.

The issue is not just personal interpretation; it's who has the authority to bind the faithful in truth.

So I agree with your distinction: the problem is not sola scriptura per se, but the lack of centralized, apostolic authority to interpret Scripture rightly. My point is that historically, sola scriptura has functioned in a way that fails to preserve the unity and obedience Jesus intended, which is why I critique it.

If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding, why does it produce mutually contradictory theologies all claiming to be biblical? Either only one is correct, in which case Scripture alone isn't actually self-interpreting, authority is needed to determine which interpretation is right. Or all of them are wrong in some way, in which case Scripture alone fails to prevent doctrinal error.

---

Let's be clear - you are still mixing concepts. You aren't actually arguing against how sola scriptura "functions in practice", you are still arguing authority over interpretation. Because even if you did not adhere to sola scriptura and you included tradition as an infallible authority, the result can still be conflicting interpretations and fragmentation. The traditions themselves must also be interpreted, not to mention it must be decided which tradition from which church father is authoritative and which are not, as well as who gets to decide.

Let's also clear up your definition of sola scriptura: it is NOT defined as "scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice". This is a common error in understanding. Sola scriptura, simply defined, is the principle that Scripture is the only infallible authority over Christian faith and practice. Sola scriptura does not preclude other kinds of authority that believers can choose to bind themselves to. But it holds that those authorities are always under the authority of scripture, because they are not in of themselves infallible, and therefore always subject to questioning and challenge.

In addition, you are also incorrect that sola scriptura "guarantees correct understanding". Sola scriptura has nothing to do with infallibility of interpretation and understanding.

Do you agree with all this? I don't want to move on until we agree to the concept first, otherwise it's just not going to be productive.

The reason these are vitally important to clear up is that so many people shoot down sola scriptura by using straw men arguments like these, illustrating a lack of understanding of the concept (and/or dishonesty, which I'm not accusing you of). What's worse, is that many don't even seem to want to correct their misunderstanding, and they just keep repeating the same flawed argument over and over, even after I've corrected them. THAT would be dishonesty, or at the least, laziness.

---

Let's be clear: I'm not misrepresenting sola scriptura. I understand it as the principle that Scripture is the only infallible authority, and that other authorities (tradition, pastors, councils) are always subordinate and subject to questioning. I also accept that sola scriptura does not guarantee correct interpretation.

So my critique isn't about misdefining sola scriptura, it's about the practical consequences of leaving interpretation under Scripture alone without a binding interpretive authority. History shows that when Christians are left to interpret Scripture individually (even with non-infallible authorities), it produces massive fragmentation, doctrinal contradiction, and competing claims of truth.

Interpretation entirely unbound by a central authority, even while formally affirming Scripture as infallible, does not prevent confusion or disunity. IMO, that's a fatal problem. I think by the end of the century you will see the vast majority of Protestants and Catholics affirming secular sinful and woke/progressive ideas. Both of these bodies broke away from the early church and have adopted their own authorities in place of apostolic tradition. There obviously needs to be an authority that binds everyone together and shuts this crap down so that people aren't lead into being degenerate sinners thinking they're holy.

---

Come on, Doc, let's be honest. You did misrepresent sola scriptura, and you did think that it guarantees correct understanding. These were your own words, for crying out loud:

"I am not arguing against sola scriptura in the narrow sense of "Scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice.""

"If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding, why does it produce mutually contradictory theologies all claiming to be biblical?"

We can't have an honest discussion without honesty.

---

You're treating a hypothetical I raised as a personal belief I hold.

That's called a modal fallacy.

When I said, "If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding…" I wasn't stating my own belief, I was highlighting that IF the principle functioned as many Protestants assume in practice, the massive doctrinal fragmentation makes no sense.

Did you misread me or are you pretending to misread me?

You haven't answered any of my questions.
What's the correct denomination?
Why are there so many radically different interpretations?

---

But who's saying that sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding?

It isn't a fallacy if you make an assertion like that, and then for people to think you are telling us your own understanding, especially since I or no one else said that.

Regardless, you DID define sola scriptura wrong. I'm merely trying to correct your definition so we can start with the same understanding. If you didn't suggest that sola scriptura also guaranteed correct understanding, then okay, let's go with it and move on. Remember, I AM trying to answer your questions, but it'd be pointless if we don't set the record straight first: you do acknowledge then, the definition of sola scriptura as I have presented it, and that it does not guarantee correct understanding, correct?

If so, then do you understand that your argument about denominations having varying and contradicting interpretations leading to division is NOT an argument against sola scriptura, that in fact it doesn't have anything to do with it, but rather that it's an argument about the authority over interpretation? Agreed, or no?

---

I'm not disputing your definition of sola scriptura.

You're treating my critique of how sola scriptura functions in practice as if it were a critique of the definition itself.

I am indeed critiquing the lack of binding interpretive authority.
But that's not separate from sola scriptura in practice, it's the practical consequence of adopting it as your governing principle.

Sola scriptura and interpretive autonomy can't be cleanly separated in the real world. Do you agree?

---

Yes, it IS separate from sola scriptura in practice. That is precisely the misunderstanding you have. Consider - a church with a central interpretive authority that adheres to sola scriptura will NOT have contradicting denominations, right? So, contradicting denominations is NOT a consequence of sola scriptura, it's the consequence of a lack of a central interpretive authority. To illustrate in another way: suppose protestantism adopted tradition in addition to Scripture as it's infallible binding authority, thus it abandons sola scriptura - without a central interpretive authority, you'd STILL get division, right? Because you're still interpreting it differently. So division into denominations is not a product of sola scriptura at all, it's soley due to not having one central, binding, interpretive authority for all believers.

What you're doing is what's commonly done, and that is to link sola scriptura with the number of divided denominations in Protestantism, and that's why you believe sola scriptura to be wrong. This is a fallacy. Do you see?

---

You could imagine a church that affirms sola scriptura while also having a binding central interpretive authority. But historically, that simply doesn't happen, because the moment you introduce a binding interpretive authority that can definitively declare doctrine, discipline, and dogma, you've abandoned the functional essence of sola scriptura.

Why?
Because the moment that authority can bind the conscience of the believer, it is no longer subordinate and fallible, which contradicts sola scriptura's core principle.

This is why the Reformers themselves rejected any binding interpretive authority except Scripture. They understood perfectly well that once you accept a definitive interpreter, you've effectively restored something like apostolic Tradition, which is precisely what sola scriptura was meant to prevent.

You're right that division arises from a lack of central authority.
But that lack of authority isn't some accidental feature, it's the direct structural consequence of sola scriptura's rejection of binding apostolic Tradition.

I'm not misunderstanding your distinction, I just see that your distinction breaks down the moment you apply it to the actual lived history of the Church.

The following is extraordinarily important:
"When you received the word of God, which you heard from us…" (1 Thess. 2:13)
"Stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught by us, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My question is why do Protestants agree with the authority of the early church who gave us the canon of the Bible and our understanding of the Trinity…but everything else is off limits?

---

Its a DIY religion. Joel Osteen is preaching prosperity. The pentecostals are preaching the continuation of apostolic miracles. The Baptists are preaching that those miracles have ceased. The reformed are preaching TULIP predestination. The Methodists are (well were) preaching Armenianism. Read the book at come up with your own instatradition based on your own personal interpretation of it...and they all call each other wrong.

I do have a good bit of respect for Luther; at least his motivation was to try and rectify what went wrong in the Roman Patriarchate after it fell into schism and eventually heresy.

Solo scriptura, sola opinari.

---

Do you anti-sola scripturists understand that sola scriptura does NOT preclude a central interpretive authority? Sola scriptura does not mean "self interpretation". And do you realize that "sola opinari" exists in RC and Orthodoxy, but instead of it being your own opinion, you're submitting and binding yourself to the opinions of others?

For as long and as vehemently you guys have argued against sola scriptura, I thought that by now you'd make some kind of effort to finally understand what it means. Tribe over truth, that's all you guys do.

---

Everyone relies on some form of authority…that's not in dispute. The real question is which authority, and how its legitimacy is grounded?

Under sola scriptura, you ultimately rely on your tradition's interpretive framework (whether that's Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.). Even if you claim a "central interpretive authority," that authority only exists because you've judged it to be the right one based on your own interpretation of Scripture. The final court is still the individual or chosen denomination.

Orthodoxy grounds authority differently:
in the historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed.

So the contrast isn't "self-interpretation vs. submitting to others' opinions."It's:

You: an authority structure your tradition created centuries after the apostles.

Us: the authority structure that the apostles' own disciples lived under and passed down.

Did Jesus not foresee that there would be squabbles and disputes in the church and he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anyone to an interpretation? So it's up to everyone's DIY with every generation having to reinvent the wheel?

---

I know that's what "orthodoxy" likes to allege. The problem is, Orthodoxy doesn't have a historic, continuous, and public witness of the early Church, the people who received, preserved, and defined the faith long before the denominations you're appealing to even existed. And where early church writings exist, they diverge significantly with one another. So there really is no consistent, continuous public witness. The practices of the early churches diverged almost as wildly as today's denominations. Hell, Catholic tradition has changed dramatically over the last 2,000 years.

This is of course why scripture is of such pivotal importance, and takes precedence over wildly divergent tradition.

---

Can you guys tell me who has it right?

Baptists who deny sacraments?
Petnacostals who deny creeds?
Calvinists who deny free will?
Lutherans who contradict all of them?
Non denoms who deny everything except their own pastor's opinons?

---

So, this has been your repeated argument against sola scriptura, your argument being that since Baptists, Pentacostals, Calvinists, Lutherans, etc. all have varying beliefs it means that sola scriptura leads to confusion and division among believers. And since Jesus did not want his believers to be divided, then it follows that sola scriptura is wrong. Do I have your view correct?

Assuming this is correct, I hope you realize that this argument is a fallacious non sequitur. It isn't an argument against sola scriptura, but rather an argument against personal, individual layperson interpretation of Scripture, in favor of a central interpretive authority that tells all believers what to believe. Neither of these preclude sola scriptura. You're dealing with the issue of authority over interpretation, not sola scriptura.

Do I have your positions correct, and do you agree with this? I don't want to move on further and answer your questions until I'm sure we agree so far.

---

I am not arguing against sola scriptura in the narrow sense of "Scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice."

Text by itself never interprets itself. Hermeneutics, the rules and methods of interpreting Scripture, are built into how anyone reads the Bible. It's a built in problem that we can't escape.

My critique is about how sola scriptura functions in practice: when you remove a central, divinely sanctioned interpretive authority, sola scriptura almost inevitably leads to subjective, conflicting interpretations, and we can see this historically in the massive fragmentation among Protestants.

The issue is not just personal interpretation; it's who has the authority to bind the faithful in truth.

So I agree with your distinction: the problem is not sola scriptura per se, but the lack of centralized, apostolic authority to interpret Scripture rightly. My point is that historically, sola scriptura has functioned in a way that fails to preserve the unity and obedience Jesus intended, which is why I critique it.

If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding, why does it produce mutually contradictory theologies all claiming to be biblical? Either only one is correct, in which case Scripture alone isn't actually self-interpreting, authority is needed to determine which interpretation is right. Or all of them are wrong in some way, in which case Scripture alone fails to prevent doctrinal error.

---

Let's be clear - you are still mixing concepts. You aren't actually arguing against how sola scriptura "functions in practice", you are still arguing authority over interpretation. Because even if you did not adhere to sola scriptura and you included tradition as an infallible authority, the result can still be conflicting interpretations and fragmentation. The traditions themselves must also be interpreted, not to mention it must be decided which tradition from which church father is authoritative and which are not, as well as who gets to decide.

Let's also clear up your definition of sola scriptura: it is NOT defined as "scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice". This is a common error in understanding. Sola scriptura, simply defined, is the principle that Scripture is the only infallible authority over Christian faith and practice. Sola scriptura does not preclude other kinds of authority that believers can choose to bind themselves to. But it holds that those authorities are always under the authority of scripture, because they are not in of themselves infallible, and therefore always subject to questioning and challenge.

In addition, you are also incorrect that sola scriptura "guarantees correct understanding". Sola scriptura has nothing to do with infallibility of interpretation and understanding.

Do you agree with all this? I don't want to move on until we agree to the concept first, otherwise it's just not going to be productive.

The reason these are vitally important to clear up is that so many people shoot down sola scriptura by using straw men arguments like these, illustrating a lack of understanding of the concept (and/or dishonesty, which I'm not accusing you of). What's worse, is that many don't even seem to want to correct their misunderstanding, and they just keep repeating the same flawed argument over and over, even after I've corrected them. THAT would be dishonesty, or at the least, laziness.

---

Let's be clear: I'm not misrepresenting sola scriptura. I understand it as the principle that Scripture is the only infallible authority, and that other authorities (tradition, pastors, councils) are always subordinate and subject to questioning. I also accept that sola scriptura does not guarantee correct interpretation.

So my critique isn't about misdefining sola scriptura, it's about the practical consequences of leaving interpretation under Scripture alone without a binding interpretive authority. History shows that when Christians are left to interpret Scripture individually (even with non-infallible authorities), it produces massive fragmentation, doctrinal contradiction, and competing claims of truth.

Interpretation entirely unbound by a central authority, even while formally affirming Scripture as infallible, does not prevent confusion or disunity. IMO, that's a fatal problem. I think by the end of the century you will see the vast majority of Protestants and Catholics affirming secular sinful and woke/progressive ideas. Both of these bodies broke away from the early church and have adopted their own authorities in place of apostolic tradition. There obviously needs to be an authority that binds everyone together and shuts this crap down so that people aren't lead into being degenerate sinners thinking they're holy.

---

Come on, Doc, let's be honest. You did misrepresent sola scriptura, and you did think that it guarantees correct understanding. These were your own words, for crying out loud:

"I am not arguing against sola scriptura in the narrow sense of "Scripture alone is authoritative for faith and practice.""

"If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding, why does it produce mutually contradictory theologies all claiming to be biblical?"

We can't have an honest discussion without honesty.

---

You're treating a hypothetical I raised as a personal belief I hold.

That's called a modal fallacy.

When I said, "If sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding…" I wasn't stating my own belief, I was highlighting that IF the principle functioned as many Protestants assume in practice, the massive doctrinal fragmentation makes no sense.

Did you misread me or are you pretending to misread me?

You haven't answered any of my questions.
What's the correct denomination?
Why are there so many radically different interpretations?

---

But who's saying that sola scriptura truly guarantees correct understanding?

It isn't a fallacy if you make an assertion like that, and then for people to think you are telling us your own understanding, especially since I or no one else said that.

Regardless, you DID define sola scriptura wrong. I'm merely trying to correct your definition so we can start with the same understanding. If you didn't suggest that sola scriptura also guaranteed correct understanding, then okay, let's go with it and move on. Remember, I AM trying to answer your questions, but it'd be pointless if we don't set the record straight first: you do acknowledge then, the definition of sola scriptura as I have presented it, and that it does not guarantee correct understanding, correct?

If so, then do you understand that your argument about denominations having varying and contradicting interpretations leading to division is NOT an argument against sola scriptura, that in fact it doesn't have anything to do with it, but rather that it's an argument about the authority over interpretation? Agreed, or no?

---

I'm not disputing your definition of sola scriptura.

You're treating my critique of how sola scriptura functions in practice as if it were a critique of the definition itself.

I am indeed critiquing the lack of binding interpretive authority.
But that's not separate from sola scriptura in practice, it's the practical consequence of adopting it as your governing principle.

Sola scriptura and interpretive autonomy can't be cleanly separated in the real world. Do you agree?

---

Yes, it IS separate from sola scriptura in practice. That is precisely the misunderstanding you have. Consider - a church with a central interpretive authority that adheres to sola scriptura will NOT have contradicting denominations, right? So, contradicting denominations is NOT a consequence of sola scriptura, it's the consequence of a lack of a central interpretive authority. To illustrate in another way: suppose protestantism adopted tradition in addition to Scripture as it's infallible binding authority, thus it abandons sola scriptura - without a central interpretive authority, you'd STILL get division, right? Because you're still interpreting it differently. So division into denominations is not a product of sola scriptura at all, it's soley due to not having one central, binding, interpretive authority for all believers.

What you're doing is what's commonly done, and that is to link sola scriptura with the number of divided denominations in Protestantism, and that's why you believe sola scriptura to be wrong. This is a fallacy. Do you see?

---

You could imagine a church that affirms sola scriptura while also having a binding central interpretive authority. But historically, that simply doesn't happen, because the moment you introduce a binding interpretive authority that can definitively declare doctrine, discipline, and dogma, you've abandoned the functional essence of sola scriptura.

Why?
Because the moment that authority can bind the conscience of the believer, it is no longer subordinate and fallible, which contradicts sola scriptura's core principle.

This is why the Reformers themselves rejected any binding interpretive authority except Scripture. They understood perfectly well that once you accept a definitive interpreter, you've effectively restored something like apostolic Tradition, which is precisely what sola scriptura was meant to prevent.

You're right that division arises from a lack of central authority.
But that lack of authority isn't some accidental feature, it's the direct structural consequence of sola scriptura's rejection of binding apostolic Tradition.

I'm not misunderstanding your distinction, I just see that your distinction breaks down the moment you apply it to the actual lived history of the Church.

The following is extraordinarily important:
"When you received the word of God, which you heard from us…" (1 Thess. 2:13)
"Stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught by us, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)

---

See, you're confusing two principles again:

Sola scriptura does NOT say anything about the infallibility or fallibility of those interpreting scripture, whether it's done individually or through a central interpretive authority. Sola scriptura is ONLY about the infallibility of Scripture itself. Review the definition of sola scriptura. It does not have a "core principle" that interpreters are fallible.

Also, I need to point out the logical error in your statement: "Because the moment that authority can bind the conscience of the believer, it is no longer subordinate and fallible, which contradicts sola scriptura's core principle." No, binding the conscience of the believer has nothing to do with infallibility or fallibility, it only has to do with authority.

I'll address those verses you posted later. Right now, it doesn't have anything to do with the crucial misunderstanding that you have, and I want to address that before we move on.

I fully understand the formal definition of sola scriptura:
Scripture alone is the only infallible authority.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then every other authority, pastors, councils, bishops, synods, must be fallible and non-binding by definition. Yes or no?

Doc Holliday said:

---

I fully understand the formal definition of sola scriptura:
Scripture alone is the only infallible authority.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then every other authority, pastors, councils, bishops, synods, must be fallible and non-binding by definition. Yes or no?

---

Well, based on what you're saying, you don't seem to have a full, correct understanding. I'm only trying to help clarify it for you, please don't be defensive.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then yes, by definition every other authority (pastors, councils, bishops, etc) is not infallible. But NO, it does not mean that their authority is not "binding" in every sense. It depends on what you mean by "binding". Consider - a church may have a statement of beliefs that it requires every member to believe, otherwise they can't be a member of the church. They are "bound" by the authority of their church to be a member.... but they are not "bound" in the sense that they can't be a Christian, and thus, apart from salvation if they don't believe it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I fully understand the formal definition of sola scriptura:
Scripture alone is the only infallible authority.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then every other authority, pastors, councils, bishops, synods, must be fallible and non-binding by definition. Yes or no?

---

Well, based on what you're saying, you don't seem to have a full, correct understanding. I'm only trying to help clarify it for you, please don't be defensive.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then yes, by definition every other authority (pastors, councils, bishops, etc) is not infallible. But NO, it does not mean that their authority is not "binding" in every sense. It depends on what you mean by "binding". Consider - a church may have a statement of beliefs that it requires every member to believe, otherwise they can't be a member of the church. They are "bound" by the authority of their church to be a member.... but they are not "bound" in the sense that they can't be a Christian, and thus, apart from salvation if they don't believe it.

---

My point is about binding doctrinal authority over the conscience of all believers in a way that prevents contradictory interpretations from taking hold.

Landmark Baptists have historically argued that only Baptists who hold their specific beliefs about baptism and church polity are true Christians and saved. They base this on their interpretation of scripture. How do you deal with that?

So while local churches can bind members to certain beliefs, that is not the same as having a central, apostolic authority that preserves unity and guards correct interpretation across the entire body of believers.

Imagine that over the next 300 years the vast majority of Protestants gradually reject the Holy Trinity, reasoning that "the Council of Nicaea came from the Orthodox, and they're apostate." "ecumenical councils were wrong, our interpretation is right". That's fatal because then we're not worshipping the same God.

It's valid to stretch these concepts to the extreme, if they can't hold up then it's a problem. If at the extreme it's not an issue, we're on the right track.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I fully understand the formal definition of sola scriptura:
Scripture alone is the only infallible authority.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then every other authority, pastors, councils, bishops, synods, must be fallible and non-binding by definition. Yes or no?

---

Well, based on what you're saying, you don't seem to have a full, correct understanding. I'm only trying to help clarify it for you, please don't be defensive.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then yes, by definition every other authority (pastors, councils, bishops, etc) is not infallible. But NO, it does not mean that their authority is not "binding" in every sense. It depends on what you mean by "binding". Consider - a church may have a statement of beliefs that it requires every member to believe, otherwise they can't be a member of the church. They are "bound" by the authority of their church to be a member.... but they are not "bound" in the sense that they can't be a Christian, and thus, apart from salvation if they don't believe it.

---

My point is about binding doctrinal authority over the conscience of all believers in a way that prevents contradictory interpretations from taking hold.

Landmark Baptists have historically argued that only Baptists who hold their specific beliefs about baptism and church polity are true Christians and saved. They base this on their interpretation of scripture. How do you deal with that?

So while local churches can bind members to certain beliefs, that is not the same as having a central, apostolic authority that preserves unity and guards correct interpretation across the entire body of believers.

Imagine that over the next 300 years the vast majority of Protestants gradually reject the Holy Trinity, reasoning that "the Council of Nicaea came from the Orthodox, and they're apostate." "ecumenical councils were wrong, our interpretation is right". That's fatal because then we're not worshipping the same God.

It's valid to stretch these concepts to the extreme, if they can't hold up then it's a problem. If at the extreme it's not an issue, we're on the right track.

---

In your sense of "binding", then no, the interpretation of Scripture by a few fallible men should never "bind" the conscience of every believer in a way that prevents them from thinking for themselves and following their own conscience. This is essentially authoritarianism, but much worse, because it involves mens' conscience. Why do those who strongly defend the free market of ideas and self determination in politics all of the sudden give in to dictatorship in religion?

The way to deal with churches like Landmark Baptist is to follow your conscience, and go to another church. If you don't believe Calvinism is true, then don't go to a Calvinist church. In the end, Jesus will judge you as an individual for what's in your heart, not what church building you went to on Sundays.

The Trinity is an interesting topic. Not to go off the rails here, but a correct belief in the Trinity is not necessary for salvation. Jesus isn't going to send someone who believes in him and fully trusts in him for their salvation to Hell because that person didn't get the doctrine on the Trinity correct.

We can continue these discussions more in depth, but let's not detract from the main point - do you agree that protestant denominational divisions is NOT an argument against sola scriptura at all, for all the reasons hashed out above? We need a correct conceptual understanding before we move on, if we want this to be productive.

Realitybites said:

---

Salvation is not found in the saying of this prayer. This sort of incantational Christianity has practically destroyed the church in the West.

Salvation is found in "I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours."

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" Matthew 7:24.

Revivalism is not the solution. It is the problem.

---

Did you even read the prayer? Yes you can pray for Salvation....Romans 10:9,10-13

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Salvation is not found in the saying of this prayer. This sort of incantational Christianity has practically destroyed the church in the West.

Salvation is found in "I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours."

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" Matthew 7:24.

Revivalism is not the solution. It is the problem.

---

Did you even read the prayer? Yes you can pray for Salvation....Romans 10:9,10-13

---

Yes. Read the prayer many times, for the first time decades ago. Prayed it. Over the years I've come to understand that it is the beginning, not the end point of salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I fully understand the formal definition of sola scriptura:
Scripture alone is the only infallible authority.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then every other authority, pastors, councils, bishops, synods, must be fallible and non-binding by definition. Yes or no?

---

Well, based on what you're saying, you don't seem to have a full, correct understanding. I'm only trying to help clarify it for you, please don't be defensive.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then yes, by definition every other authority (pastors, councils, bishops, etc) is not infallible. But NO, it does not mean that their authority is not "binding" in every sense. It depends on what you mean by "binding". Consider - a church may have a statement of beliefs that it requires every member to believe, otherwise they can't be a member of the church. They are "bound" by the authority of their church to be a member.... but they are not "bound" in the sense that they can't be a Christian, and thus, apart from salvation if they don't believe it.

---

My point is about binding doctrinal authority over the conscience of all believers in a way that prevents contradictory interpretations from taking hold.

Landmark Baptists have historically argued that only Baptists who hold their specific beliefs about baptism and church polity are true Christians and saved. They base this on their interpretation of scripture. How do you deal with that?

So while local churches can bind members to certain beliefs, that is not the same as having a central, apostolic authority that preserves unity and guards correct interpretation across the entire body of believers.

Imagine that over the next 300 years the vast majority of Protestants gradually reject the Holy Trinity, reasoning that "the Council of Nicaea came from the Orthodox, and they're apostate." "ecumenical councils were wrong, our interpretation is right". That's fatal because then we're not worshipping the same God.

It's valid to stretch these concepts to the extreme, if they can't hold up then it's a problem. If at the extreme it's not an issue, we're on the right track.

---

In your sense of "binding", then no, the interpretation of Scripture by a few fallible men should never "bind" the conscience of every believer in a way that prevents them from thinking for themselves and following their own conscience. This is essentially authoritarianism, but much worse, because it involves mens' conscience. Why do those who strongly defend the free market of ideas and self determination in politics all of the sudden give in to dictatorship in religion?

The way to deal with churches like Landmark Baptist is to follow your conscience, and go to another church. If you don't believe Calvinism is true, then don't go to a Calvinist church. In the end, Jesus will judge you as an individual for what's in your heart, not what church building you went to on Sundays.

The Trinity is an interesting topic. Not to go off the rails here, but a correct belief in the Trinity is not necessary for salvation. Jesus isn't going to send someone who believes in him and fully trusts in him for their salvation to Hell because that person didn't get the doctrine on the Trinity correct.

We can continue these discussions more in depth, but let's not detract from the main point - do you agree that protestant denominational divisions is NOT an argument against sola scriptura at all, for all the reasons hashed out above? We need a correct conceptual understanding before we move on, if we want this to be productive.

---

We've already gone over this and you want to frame it your way so you can protect Protestantism.

I don't think this will be productive at all. You see Orthodoxy as apostate and you're not willing to change your mind.