/lit/ - Literature

>>17152753
Sola Scriptura meant Scripture was the supreme authority over the church. The Bible ruled reason and tradition because it alone was infallible as God’s word. All other authorities (including church leadership) were fallible and must submit to Scripture.

Why was the supreme authority of Scripture an issue at the Reformation? A variety of medieval theologians believed that the institutional church’s leadership, the bishops headed by the Pope (technically called the “magisterium”), were the true interpreters of Scripture. This effectively placed the teaching authority of the bishops over Scripture itself. The magisterium then could not be questioned. A turning point was Martin Luther’s famous debate with John Eck (1486-1543) at Leipzig in 1519. There it dawned on Luther that the magisterium could be in error, because the Council of Constance (1415) had wrongly put John Hus to death. The supreme authority of Scripture served to keep church leadership accountable.

The second aspect to sola scriptura was the sufficiency of Scripture. The Catholic church in the sixteenth century affirmed that Scripture needed supplementation with various rituals and beliefs not be found in Scripture. As John Eck put it: “not everything has been clearly handed down in the Sacred Scriptures”.[2] In response the reformers argued that, whilst there were many truths of science and history that are not in Scripture, the Bible is sufficient for final salvation. Scripture equips believers with all that is needed to be saved and persevere to ultimate salvation. They proved this with the words that sum up John’s gospel

>>17152766
Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30–31, NIV)

John’s Gospel (which assumes the authority of the OT) in itself is sufficient for salvation. Hence, any other NT book added to it, only increases an already sufficient collection of books.

The reformers used the sufficiency of Scripture against a morass of rituals (e.g. not eating meat during Lent) and beliefs (e.g. the immaculate conception of Mary) had developed over the centuries. The reformers saw the burden this tangle was on believers. For example, many priests found celibacy unnecessarily oppressive. So, reformers like Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531) questioned many medieval rites and opinions because they were not in Scripture and so they should not be imposed on Christians.

The clarity of Scripture denoted that any person could read Scripture for themselves and discover the basic way of salvation. It was the clarity of Scripture that helped drive the reformers to translate the Bible into the common tongue. Because Scripture was, in William Tyndale’s words, even for the ‘ploughboy’.

>>17152771
The third element of sola scriptura is the clarity of Scripture. This did not mean that all of Scripture was crystal clear to every Christian. It also did not signify that pastors and teachers were not needed to help laypeople understand Scripture (Eph. 4:11-12). The clarity of Scripture denoted that any person could read Scripture for themselves and discover the basic way of salvation. The reformers did agree that parts of Scripture were difficult to understand. But these passages did not threaten the sufficiency of Scripture. Rather, the unclear parts of Scripture were to be interpreted in light of its clear parts. Indeed, it was the clarity of Scripture that helped drive the reformers to translate the Bible into the common tongue. Because Scripture was, in William Tyndale’s words, even for the “ploughboy”. Laypeople needed to be fed with God’s word, and they were required to keep preachers accountable with an open Bible in their hands. Tyndale believed this so firmly that he lost his life for translating Scripture into the common tongue.

Sola scriptura is a simple phrase. But contained in it, are three critical truths: the Bible is the supreme authority, sufficient, and clear. All three are essential to the life of God’s people.

>>17152753
>>17152766
This all seems a tad misleading if not nonsensical. Scripture is writing, therefore it requires interpretation (even translation implies interpretation). Interpreting Scripture doesn't mean your opinion is superior to Scripture, as if there was some instant understanding derived automatically from Scripture and all interpretation or readings were supplemental. Even Protestants recognize the necessity of discussing Scripture, so this seems to be merely a question of who can declare an interpretation or reading to be valid, disguised as a return to Scripture. This is simply a textual turf war, something that Protestant denominations would end up engaging in heavily after the Reformation.

>>17152792
Scripture interprets Scripture. If a part of the Bible is unclear, you refer to a clearer part of the Bible to interpret it. Only someone really disingenuous would act like this concept is confusing, like the liberal churches that read marriage is between a man and woman and say " what did he mean by this?"

>>17152811
Interpretation is always done by readers, not by texts. You use parts of Scripture to interprets others. But you also use (willingly or not) your own cultural background. This is how you end up with people reading some kind of specific American eschatology into the Bible (or some African eschatology in the case of the rastas). This is not about being disingenuous, this is about whether you accept to gatekeep Scripture interpretation. If you don't, then the excess you describe is a natural consequence. I am not Christian and have no stake in this debate, but hermeneutic choices have consequences (and yes, there are all choices, there is no default hermeneutic standpoint).

CLEVER TRIP BRO, HILARIOUS SHIT

>>17152841
I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but the gatekeeping of interpretation doesn't prevent cultural influence. That part is very objectively wrong. The history of catholic interpretation is crystal clear proof of this. Moreover those institutions introduced even more culturally biased interpretation than would have otherwise existed. For instance, the sudden shift to Aristotelianism in catholicism because Aquinas liked him.

Putting these trends beside Princeton theology in Presbyterianism, there's no comparison which denomination emphasized plain reading, historical-grammatical (aka original culture) interpretation

>>17152877
>I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but the gatekeeping of interpretation doesn't prevent cultural influence.
Of course, nothing prevents it, gatekeeping only maintain it within a certain standard of interpretation, which can be good or bad and many other things.

> For instance, the sudden shift to Aristotelianism in catholicism because Aquinas liked him.
Aristotles was already very prominent in European (and Muslim) theology much before Aquinas.

>Moreover those institutions introduced even more culturally biased interpretation than would have otherwise existed.
Debatable and speculative. It's hard to see how democratizing Scripture interpretation doesn't produce a greater diversity and a greater total mass of interpretation. And since my central point (which you agreed to) is that no interpretation is culturally unbiased, it follows that allowing Bible interpretation to be generalized outside of institution should produce a greater quantity and variety of bias.

>there's no comparison which denomination emphasized plain reading, historical-grammatical (aka original culture) interpretation
I don't think plain-reading is objectively the superior form of reading, as for grammatical reading, that cannot be done with translations. Historical reading is not exactly exclusive to Protestant denominations, not to mention Scripture are not exactly reliable historical documents either (so that in case of conflict with outside historical evidence, you have to side with Scripture, which defeats the point of doing a historical reading in the first place).

>>17152928
>Debatable and speculative. It's hard to see how democratizing Scripture interpretation doesn't produce a greater diversity and a greater total mass of interpretation. And since my central point (which you agreed to) is that no interpretation is culturally unbiased, it follows that allowing Bible interpretation to be generalized outside of institution should produce a greater quantity and variety of bias.
I don't think you're viewing the issue as a Christian which is why we're talking past each other here. The issue isn't whether or not there's greater diversity of interpretation or bias. The issue is whether there exists a true church, aka a body of believers, that interprets the Bible appropriately in order to achieve salvation through a right faith.

Diversity of interpretations on various points isn't even relevant to Protestants anyway because a great deal of theology is considered irrelevant to salvation.

Gatekeeping to limit interpretation is pointless if your interpretation is wrong, and cajoling people who want to believe something unchristian into believing is a pointless battle.

The issue if gay marriage is a great example. The body if Protestant churches that don't allow gay marriage do so because they read the Bible and understand its meaning. Those that choose to ignore this are free to do so, just as they're free to not be christian in the first place. Just as they are free to be catholic and believe in gay marriage privately.

What is the point of handwringing trying to control others? Especially when the Bible states that false interpretations are a fact of Christian life.

>>17152811
1/2
>Scripture interprets Scripture. If a part of the Bible is unclear, you refer to a clearer part of the Bible to interpret it.
The fact that modern Protestants STILL parrot this talking point never fails to make me lol.
So let's take your point and run with it. Tell me, can you, WITHOUT summoning a single outside source or theological tradition, explain the following:
>Free will or predestination
>Penal substitution vs Christus victor vs literally any other atonement theory
>If christians can eat blood sausage
>How a church should be governed
>Whether women can be priests/pastors or even deacons
>What the litmus test for being a Christian is (Are LDS Christian? JWs?)
>Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or the Father and Son
>If baptism is immersion, sprinkling or some other form
>What does baptism even do, if anything?
>Once saved, always saved?
>Will all be saved?
>What even is salvation? What does it entail?
>Do the unborn or infants go to Hell?
>For that matter, what is Hell?
Okay, so that's a lot. Well, instead of explaining those to me, how about you instead explain why, if "scripture interprets scripture" and it's so self-evident from reading the text, there are an innumerable number of different positions within the Protestant umbrella on ALL of these issues? Is everyone except Pastor Billy Bob's First Baptist Church of Kerrville TX interpreting scripture wrong?

I ask these questions because ultimately, Sola Scriptura is intellectually deficient in so many areas. It cannot even justify its own reason for being – please, if you would, could you kindly point to where, SPECIFICALLY, the Bible CLEARLY posits the concept of Sola Scriptura? In a way that no reasonable man could contradict.

>>17152979
2/2
Not only that, but Sola Scriptura is flawed in that Christianity, as a religion, is one based on historical narrative and tradition. Even before the first ink had gone to paper with the New Testament, Christians were practicing their religion. How? According to the traditions that had been passed to them. Christianity, throughout its first 1500 years of existence, was a religion that did not exist independently, but rather relied on its own history. Denying the historicity of the Church (which is what Sola Scriptura does, as it throws out the entire collective shared experience of the Church in favor of you, the big smart man in the room, to decide everything) is an egotistical move motivated seemingly by a desire for theological "purity" – which, recalling what I said about historicity – it then denies itself access to. Go to any collection of early Church writings, really, any of them, and find me a single author who professes anything even resembling Sola Scriptura. Just one, really, please. The misguided Reformed Protestant attempts to "return" to the "original" faith are doomed to failure because nowhere in the historical record can anything even close to Reformed Protestantism be found. Nowhere.

It's the theological equivalent of some dude from New Jersey finding a copy of the Quran, deciding it's the infallible word of God, interpreting it in his exact way, and then explaining that the Quran and only the Quran is authoritative – a view which even conservative Muslims do not endorse (see the necessity of Hadiths in Islam).

I have observed on multiple occasions people I know (both online and IRL) taking an interest in church history and, after an honest inquiry, come to the conclusion that they cannot in good faith be Protestant anymore. I have seen them become Catholic (I did not) and Orthodox (I did) because an honest look at the history of the Church leaves little other option. To be a Christian is to willingly engage and participate in the shared life of the Church. Christianity is a social religion, not a solitary one. If you reject the Church and cling only to your Bible, you are essentially a Bible-is, not a Christian.

>>17152979
>>17152984
Catholic interpretation and teaching has changed very dramatically over time, so that seems to make your entire wall of nonsense and rage moot.

>>17153030
I'm not Catholic. Did you even read my post? Or consider any of the arguments for that matter?

>>17153052
There was a lot of fluff to it and I don't want to get sidetracked into a lot of irrelevant nonsense but its what your posts invite when you spam a wall of text. For instance, the way you end on those anecdotes about conversion. Do you really want me to address that by posting statistics on the rapid deconversions of catholics and orthodox? Why did you even post that? Other parts like claiming the reformation was about creating a recreation of the early Church for historical accuracy... I mean you're engaging with a strawman. In fact most of what you posted is predicated on bizarre assumptions and misinformation about what protestantism is. I don't see a fruitful conversation here. Sorry.

And btw I was a former catholic who took the possibility of converting to orthodoxy seriously. I went with confessional Presbyterian because it made far more sense. It only didn't appear that way because I was caught up in the strawman of protestantism that you all put forth rather than engaging with it on its own terms.

>>17153094
>Other parts like claiming the reformation was about creating a recreation of the early Church for historical accuracy... I mean you're engaging with a strawman. In fact most of what you posted is predicated on bizarre assumptions and misinformation about what protestantism is
Those are based entirely on conversations I have had with many protestants IRL over the years. But if you want the arguments only:

>If scripture interprets scripture, why do so many people end up with radically different readings from the same text?
>Where does the Bible itself clearly and undeniably posit Sola Scriptura?
>Knowing what we know of Church history, how is it that Sola Scriptura as a concept only appeared 1500 years after the death of Christ?

>>17153129
>If scripture interprets scripture, why do so many people end up with radically different readings from the same text?
Because people willfully or honestly misinterpret Scripture, or because they are misled, or a million other reasons. The question here I think is how does an authoritative body resolve this? Catholicism has literally done 180s on numerous points. Orthodoxy leaves many things open/unanswered/under the purview of various churches. Moreover, I don't think Catholicism or Orthodoxy would argue that Scripture DOESN'T interpret Scripture anyway. Neither does having an authoritative body prevent followers from holding their own interpretation anyway, as is evidenced by the MAJORITY of Catholics and Orthodox who hold beliefs contrary to official teachings. At least I don't have to share a church with people I drastically disagree with.

>Where does the Bible itself clearly and undeniably posit Sola Scriptura?
This is a strawman. The argument is not that the Bible posits "only listening to the Bible", it's that the Bible declares itself infallible. I hope you are familiar enough with Scripture to be able to recognize it repeatedly describes itself as infallible. The question then is does an infallible source require another infallible source to interpret it. The question then also is: why would there be another infallible source, and where is the evidence for its existence? The Bible does not indicate that human authoritative bodies are infallible anywhere.

>Knowing what we know of Church history, how is it that Sola Scriptura as a concept only appeared 1500 years after the death of Christ?
This question should be evident by what I typed above: You are not understanding Sola Scriptura correctly. To add to it: As an Orthodox Christian - What church rulings are infallible? We know the Catholic answer. What about Orthodox?

>>17153030
>>17153094
low iq brainlet detected

>>17153179
>it's that the Bible declares itself infallible
Where does it do this? The Bible is a collection put together by the Roman Catholic Church

>>17153244
>The Bible is a collection put together by the Roman Catholic Church
The Orthodox poster would disagree

>Where does it do this?
Maybe you should spend some time with the Bible? Or just do a simple Google search. I'm sorry but as I said above before the Orthodox poster became more direct, I'm not interested in a fruitless discussion. And someone who is going to screech about being Catholic and be proud of not knowing the Bible and fairly prominent texts... it's just not something I'm interested in.

>>17153179
>The question here I think is how does an authoritative body resolve this?
I think that question sort of answers itself, in that an authoritative body, if it does actually possess authority, can specifically say "that's wrong" or "that's right".
>Orthodoxy leaves many things open/unanswered/under the purview of various churches.
Given the tendency for humans to overstep their bounds, it makes a lot of sense to admit that there's some stuff we just can't understand.
>Neither does having an authoritative body prevent followers from holding their own interpretation anyway, as is evidenced by the MAJORITY of Catholics and Orthodox who hold beliefs contrary to official teachings.
That's a problem with laity, not doctrine, that plagues any institution once it gets big enough. Poorly catechized laity don't change the reality of church doctrine.
>The argument is not that the Bible posits...
And this seems to be a problem that we are starting from two different points. I won't try to misrepresent your starting point, but mine is that Christ left behind a Church, out of which we received our Tradition (which includes the Bible), that is to say, right faith and practice. So from that starting point, it is no great leap to say that the Church has authority to interpret scripture, since the Church is what authored scripture in the first place. After all, who decided what books should and shouldn't be in the NT? It's not like God just handed John a copy of the NT already written, but rather the New Testament was written by many people over many years and required much debate and, in the end, an *authoritative* decision by the Church to canonize those books which would be included. To me, the very existence of the biblical Canon itself seems evidence enough that the Church has at least some authority over doctrine.
>You are not understanding Sola Scriptura correctly.
I have conversed many times with protestants IRL about this, including one who is a deacon for a Reformed Baptist church (I think Westminster confession?) and he has tried to make the same point you do about Sola Scriptura not discounting things like tradition and early Church Fathers, yet the reasoning didn't make sense. A summary of a conversation I had with him:

>Well, we don't discount the Church Fathers, take Augustine for example, Calvin quotes him quite a bit, his writings support the idea of PSA
>But didn't Augustine also support infant baptism and affirm the Real Presence, as well as the authority of the Church?
>Well... we don't agree with those because in those cases that's just Augustine talking, not the Bible
>But in those cases, he uses the Bible to support them
>Yes, but he was wrong in those cases
>So why use Augustine as an authority in the first place if you admit some of his interpretations were wrong?
>Well Augustine isn't the authority, the Bible is
>So why bring him up in the first place?

>>17153255
For the record, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches were not separate at the time the Biblical canon was finalized. Both myself and my Catholic brothers can agree on this.

>>17153367
>Given the tendency for humans to overstep their bounds, it makes a lot of sense to admit that there's some stuff we just can't understand.
I agree. That's the Protestant position.

>I think that question sort of answers itself, in that an authoritative body, if it does actually possess authority, can specifically say "that's wrong" or "that's right".
But in practice, as you admit later, it's not actually efficacious in the real world because there is not only a plurality of opinion, but majority disagreement in Cath/Ortho churches with the official positions.

>Poorly catechized laity don't change the reality of church doctrine.
Neither do numerous liberal Protestant denominations. The only difference is you are united to your heterodox laity as a church, whereas liberal Protestants I disagree with might as well not exist.

>And this seems to be a problem that we are starting from two different points.
Then the positions are irreconcilable, but you haven't made clear where the disagreement with Orthodoxy is. What in Tradition is infallible, other than the Bible?

>Church is what authored scripture in the first place
Not according to Scripture.

>who decided what books should and shouldn't be in the NT?
God. Claiming that a hierarchy "approved" books implies that they could have theoretically included any book they desired, but that's not the case. The criteria for inclusion as Scripture was specific and based on the historical veracity of the books considered. Moreover, the Church, the body of believers, chose the texts by recognizing their inspiration, but those texts were already in use in churches, so the historical record suggests a non-hierarchical, diffuse recognition anyway.

>Augustine
I'm not sure what your point is here. Neither the Orthodox nor Catholics recognize Augustine as infallible and have points of disagreement with him as well.

The Catholic church has done a horrific job of making the case for the necessity of some authority figure who interprets and has the final say on scripture. I think the papacy has confused believers and unbelievers and left people with more questions than answers in the past several decades... It really seems like the only time the pope ever comes up in discussion is when he's created a division and sown confusion among people with some weird interpretation of scripture. I dunno, the dude (and the dudes at the vatican) are not inspiring a lot of confidence

>>17153488
What really doesn't inspire confidence are the Catholics who see this and don't listen to the current pope, but then berate Protestants for doing the same thing but without the cognitive dissonance.

>>17153709
The mental gymnastics would be funny if they weren't so sad

>Pope Francis is so wrong, I really disagree with him
>Also we need the church heirarchy so there is authoritative interpretation

I don't know what's going on in this thread but I don't like it.

>>17153781
What's happening is allow Christ to work in you. Follow the Bible and the Westminster Standards. Join a confessional Presbyterian church and be based.

>>17153367
Why does this retard ortho-nigger think that cathocucks and orthocucks believe augustine (pbuh) is an infallible authority? is this faggot really this fucking stupid/poorly catechized that he's sitting here bitching about other religions when he doesn't understand his own?

i mean for real though how fucking dumb is this nigger that he literally thought "haha well if protestants are so based why don't they put augustine on par with god?" was a good argument? not even religious but i am absolutely floored by the room temp iq of this embarrassment.

don't post apologetics for your shit faith if you don't even know it.

>>17153823
>Presbyterian
dropped.

Tripfags are the worst. How pathetic do you have to be to aspire to pretentiousness on 4chin?

>>17154645
I really did go to Bates and NYU tho

Bump

Catholics should die

remove your name and I shall read your post.
God bless

>>17159491
come on just let me have this. its been making me giggle so much every time I post. My kids have been home all week and I'm exhausted. I just want to shitpost with le funny name. Please. Think of what Jesus would do. He would let me

>>17153709
ive noticed in my conversations with trad caths protestants have more respect for "pastor Jim" then their infallible vicar of christ. they way they talk about Francis I would never consider to talk about an elder in my own church. if I was that suspicious of his interpretations and motives I would simply leave. of course this goes into the whole "wells theres only on apostolic true church" and other presumptions the Catholic Church feeds its followers

>>17160018
Separation from heresy maintains orthodoxy. Hierarchical churches are the most liberal. And yes that includes the orthodox who, despite the online memes, are all extremely left leaning. Their bishops are atrocious.

>>17160036
u got any protestant theologians I could listen to? James White can be to reformed. lathan flowers only talks about how bad Calvinism is(im not even reformed but it gets old sometimes) and others dont go into history as much as I want

>>17160478
Well there's obviously the Princeton theologians, who as a whole are interesting but in terms of modern applications BB Warfield would be the most relevant.

Meredith Klein is very interesting. People seem to like RC Sproul, haven't read him personally. Joel Beeke has some interesting perspectives on Puritan leaning theology. Vos is a little deeper and more technical. Berkhof is similarly more challenging.

I think Tim Keller is great for contemporary perspectives on growing the church, and he has a lot of talks worth listening to. More for a general audience, but insightful. And then the YouTube channel called Inspiring Philosophy is actually great for apologetics and understanding certain books of the Bible

Here you have your Sola Scriptura, bro.

>>17160585
Can you fuck off with this fried brain cringe zoomer shit?

>>17160598
Why are you insulting your fellow Protestant? He only wanted to interpret the Bible :'(

The most embarrassing thing about sola scriptura (besides the idiocy of letting pseuds and plebs of all kinds to interpret the Bible, that Protestants will deny but happens IRL all the time) is in itself the lack of authority. The gospel of Matthew says that Jesus taught with authority, unlike the Pharisees, just as the Pharisees were only experts in the law and the scriptures without any further capacity to settle up axiomatic assumptions on what they were talking about. It was just opinion, pure doxa, until the glorious day that Jesus came and taught in absolutes. At the end of the day the Protestant pastor like the Pharisee has to compete with an ocean of interpretations that are at the same level of truth as his, because he has rejected the very concept of authority. Protestant ""churches"" are no any different from philosophical clubs that strike their different interpretations to one another without anyone having the primacy or the ability to say that their opinions are any better other than yelling "this is literally what the Bible says" "scripture interprets scripture" and other imbecilities. A Protestant doesn't have truths, he has interpretations, opinions; he plays in a playground between blatant lies to almost certainties, never reaching proper knowledge since he lacks the authority.

>>17161106
Wow amazing. Every point you made was refuted earlier in the thread. Are you people copypasting or something? Thats the only explanation I have for a post like this.

>>17160585
>>17160618
>>17161106
Braindead. The detached irony and viciousness of catholics speaks to their anxiety about the collapse of their religion mostly. If they had any sense of security there would be a hint of magnanimity but they see the writing on the wall and are thrashing about like a caged animal.

>Only 17% of Catholics worldwide are under 30
There's your explanation for the shitposting and bad memes.

Questions:
Are there substantial differences in text between Catholic and Protestant Bible?
Is the CEI edition of the Bible the best Catholic one?
Why do people recommend this or that edition?

>>17160598
Says the dumb lesbo bint faking an identity and ripping off someone named Marty Foord.

You hate the Bible and Christianity anyway. For literally the same reasons all fags do. Why don't you just fuck off.

>>17161497
>tfw schizophrenia