Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread

Lawrence87

Lawrence87

Heritage
Orthodox
Many of the issues in modern Christianity are the result of Sola Scriptura.

I've literally heard people explain that when Saint Paul refers to homosexuals he means something like "male prostitutes" rather than people in a loving same sex relationship. Whilst I fully accept that it is a stretch to reach such conclusions from a plain reading of the text. Sola Scriptura leaves the door open to these kind of interpretive gymnastics, and all the people who disagree with it from within can really say is "you're intepreting it wrong." Who gets to decide?

The answer is the individual, ultimately, and that is why you get pride flags in churches.
 
Lawrence87 said:
Many of the issues in modern Christianity are the result of Sola Scriptura.

I've literally heard people explain that when Saint Paul refers to homosexuals he means something like "male prostitutes" rather than people in a loving same sex relationship. Whilst I fully accept that it is a stretch to reach such conclusions from a plain reading of the text. Sola Scriptura leaves the door open to these kind of interpretive gymnastics, and all the people who disagree with it from within can really say is "you're intepreting it wrong." Who gets to decide?

The answer is the individual, ultimately, and that is why you get pride flags in churches.
Click to expand...
Since Zwingli started using the term 'Sola Scriptura' in the early 1500's no mainstream Christian church has interpreted scripture to condone homosexuality except for fringe cases in modern times. The meaning of the term from the reformers perspective is that in matters of doctrine, the teaching of the scriptures supersedes the teaching of the church and\or it's traditions when differences arise. Ultimately the Holy Spirit leads a chosen believer to the truth and to a traditional Christian church that doesn't believe in such nonsense ('male prostitutes'). The damned will of course make up false churches and doctrine as has been the case since the first century; heretics and heresy has abounded from the beginning of Church history and will continue to do so until the end (or perhaps post millenialism is true and that won't happen) but His sheep will avoid such evil.
 
Lawrence87 said:
Many of the issues in modern Christianity are the result of Sola Scriptura.

I've literally heard people explain that when Saint Paul refers to homosexuals he means something like "male prostitutes" rather than people in a loving same sex relationship. Whilst I fully accept that it is a stretch to reach such conclusions from a plain reading of the text. Sola Scriptura leaves the door open to these kind of interpretive gymnastics, and all the people who disagree with it from within can really say is "you're intepreting it wrong." Who gets to decide?

The answer is the individual, ultimately, and that is why you get pride flags in churches.
Click to expand...

I have been sort of mentoring a guy for a long time that insists on his own personal interpretation of Scripture, and will twist and mutilate anything he finds in the Bible to meet his preconceived ideas, especially about sex. He is single and has been trying to convince me that all the Bible verses about fornication, keeping your body holy, etc. are only referring to "bad" forms of sexuality, like homosexuality, pedos, beastiality, etc. He is very quick to vociferously condemn them, but says "normal premarital sex" is fine, and that we just don't understand what the Bible really says (but he has it figured out now). He even went so far as to announce that all English Bible translations have errors, so none of them can be trusted. He sends me verse after verse, twisting them and taking them out of context. He won't listen to anything the Church Fathers or Saints have said, because "it's not in the Bible". It makes me insane trying to reason with him. He won't join any church either, regardless of denomination, because he says it's good enough to pray to Jesus privately at home. This is what "sola scriptura" has wrought: total loss of objective truth and or a sacramental view of life in Christ.
 
Last edited:
Aloha said:
Since Zwingli started using the term 'Sola Scriptura' in the early 1500's no mainstream Christian church has interpreted scripture to condone homosexuality except for fringe cases in modern times. The meaning of the term from the reformers perspective is that in matters of doctrine, the teaching of the scriptures supersedes the teaching of the church and\or it's traditions when differences arise. Ultimately the Holy Spirit leads a chosen believer to the truth and to a traditional Christian church that doesn't believe in such nonsense ('male prostitutes'). The damned will of course make up false churches and doctrine as has been the case since the first century; heretics and heresy has abounded from the beginning of Church history and will continue to do so until the end (or perhaps post millenialism is true and that won't happen) but His sheep will avoid such evil.
Click to expand...
"No one has ever interpreted the Scripture in that way" is an appeal to tradition. So in that instance someone might say "I don't care about the traditions of men, the Holy Spirit led me to this conclusion."

When saying "Reformers never interpreted it that way..." you tacitly acknowledge the necessity for a traditional interpretive framework. In other words Scripture is not sufficient in itself.
 
Last edited:
Lawrence87 said:
"No one has ever interpreted the Scripture in that way" is an appeal to tradition. So in that instance someone might say "I don't care about the traditions of men, the Holy Spirit led me to this conclusion."

When saying "Reformers never interpreted it that way..." you tacitly acknowledge the necessity for a traditional interpretive framework. In other words Scripture is not sufficient in itself.
Click to expand...
Except the Scriptures say they are sufficient. It's not the fault of the Bible if a church apostatizes.
 
GodfatherPartTwo said:
Except the Scriptures say they are sufficient. It's not the fault of the Bible if a church apostatizes.
Click to expand...
If two people read the same passage and interpret it differently and it is not unambiguous as to who is correct, how do you determine which person is interpreting accurately?
 
Lawrence87 said:
If two people read the same passage and interpret it differently and it is not unambiguous as to who is correct, how do you determine which person is interpreting accurately?
Click to expand...
You don't do it by reading the passage in light of a medieval tradition that was unknown to the Apostles.

"My church says so" does nothing to tell us what the intention of the original Author is.
 
I believe the church must define what scripture teaches but individuals must use their own logic and reasoning when they read it to truly digest it- not to come up with their own crazy doctrines but to understand the message and themes of individual books and how they fit in with scripture as a whole.

The church interprets the Bible and sets doctrine but individuals must be fully engaged mentally and spiritually when they read it for themselves.
 
GodfatherPartTwo said:
The same way you interpret whatever dogmas your church tells you to believe. By assuming words have meaning, and applying a historical-grammatical hermeneutic to the text.
Click to expand...
Ok but I am asking about if two people are doing that within their understanding of those things. Both people read the same passage, both interpret it in a straightforward sense, both feel equally convinced that the Holy Spirit guided them to their understanding but they come to a different conclusion.

For example why did Christ curse the fig tree? It's not really straightforwardly apparent in the text itself, and people have puzzled over this through the ages. There is a great deal of double meaning, cross reference, and symbolism etc in the Biblical text. And it is clear that agreement is not the outcome of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, considering how the church has fractured and continues to fracture since it's advent. It's a complicated book and it doesn't interpret itself.
 
Lawrence87 said:
Ok but I am asking about if two people are doing that within their understanding of those things. Both people read the same passage, both interpret it in a straightforward sense, both feel equally convinced that the Holy Spirit guided them to their understanding but they come to a different conclusion.
Click to expand...
God will be the one who judges that. I can't force someone to my interpretation. If they won't follow the Bible then there's nothing I can do for them.

Lawrence87 said:
For example why did Christ curse the fig tree? It's not really straightforwardly apparent in the text itself, and people have puzzled over this through the ages. There is a great deal of double meaning, cross reference, and symbolism etc in the Biblical text. And it is clear that agreement is not the outcome of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, considering how the church has fractured and continues to fracture since it's advent. It's a complicated book and it doesn't interpret itself.
Click to expand...
By that same logic, it's clear that agreement is not the outcome of the Orthodox Church. You believe all the Church Fathers were Orthodox, yes? And how many different interpretations did they have? Yet you wont agree with them when the majority of them said that the Scriptures are perspicuous, able to be understood.
 
GodfatherPartTwo said:
God will be the one who judges that. I can't force someone to my interpretation. If they won't follow the Bible then there's nothing I can do for them.
Click to expand...
You've just equated your interpretation with the Bible there. Which anyone else can do as well.

By that same logic, it's clear that agreement is not the outcome of the Orthodox Church. You believe all the Church Fathers were Orthodox, yes? And how many different interpretations did they have? Yet you wont agree with them when the majority of them said that the Scriptures are perspicuous, able to be understood.
Click to expand...
The standard is not that we must have one view/interpretation on every subject under the sun. On some topics there may be a range of acceptable interpratations or some Father may have been wrong. But any casual observer can't help but notice that the Orthodox have a very consistent understanding of what the Scriptures teach, what the Church is, what the Sacraments are, what the Creed is, what the ascetic life looks etc.
 
Christos_NIKA said:
I have been sort of mentoring a guy for a long time that insists on his own personal interpretation of Scripture, and will twist and mutilate anything he finds in the Bible to meet his preconceived ideas, especially about sex. He is single and has been trying to convince me that all the Bible verses about fornication, keeping your body holy, etc. are only referring to "bad" forms of sexuality, like homosexuality, pedos, beastiality, etc. He is very quick to vociferously condemn them, but says "normal premarital sex" is fine, and that we just don't understand what the Bible really says (but he has it figured out now). He even went so far as to announce that all English Bible translations have errors, so none of them can be trusted. He sends me verse after verse, twisting them and taking them out of context. He won't listen to anything the Church Fathers or Saints have said, because "it's not in the Bible". It makes me insane trying to reason with him. He won't join any church either, regardless of denomination, because he says it's good enough to pray to Jesus privately at home. This is what "sola scriptura" has wrought: total loss of objective truth and or a sacramental view of life in Christ.
Click to expand...
Since he refuses to listen to any English translation, tell him to look up what  porneia means. Then ask him if he, a  pornoi, will inherit the Kingdom of God according to 1 Corinthians 6:9.

If he refuses to repent, the deficiency is in him, not in the Bible.
 
OrthoSerb said:
But any casual observer can't help but notice that the Orthodox have a very consistent understanding of what the Scriptures teach, what the Church is, what the Sacraments are, what the Creed is, what the ascetic life looks etc.
Click to expand...
The same can be said for anyone who identifies themselves by the Five Solae, or anyone who identifies themselves by the Bishop of Rome.
 
GodfatherPartTwo said:
God will be the one who judges that. I can't force someone to my interpretation. If they won't follow the Bible then there's nothing I can do for them.
Click to expand...
This is what it comes down to, each individual thinks that their interpretation is the accurate way of "following the Bible" You can say they are wrong and they can say you're wrong...

GodfatherPartTwo said:
By that same logic, it's clear that agreement is not the outcome of the Orthodox Church. You believe all the Church Fathers were Orthodox, yes? And how many different interpretations did they have? Yet you wont agree with them when the majority of them said that the Scriptures are perspicuous, able to be understood.
Click to expand...
Orthodox doctrine is based upon Patristic consensus, which by and large agrees. It is also true that the same Scripture can have different meanings that are expounded by different Church Fathers, that are not mutually exclusive. The Scriptures are able to be understood within the framework of the Church.

When you remove it from that context, it doesn't really matter about your interpretation. If a church wants to interpret or explain away Bible verses so that they can have faggots leading their services and pride flags on the walls. What can you do? Other than be like "I don't agree with them!" The Orthodox church has a means of assuring that stuff like this doesn't fly. Priests get disciplined, people get excommunicated and so forth. In Reformed churches all you can do is be like 'I don't agree with that church' and go to a different one, or end up not going to one because you can't find one that you agree with or whatever. But there is no mechanism to prevent this rot, and it exists because people can essentially interpret the Bible however they please and if people like what they say enough they have themselves a church and there's nothing anyone can do about it, other than lament at the state of modern Christianity.
 
Lawrence87 said:
If a church wants to interpret or explain away Bible verses so that they can have faggots leading their services and pride flags on the walls. What can you do? Other than be like "I don't agree with them!" The Orthodox church has a means of assuring that stuff like this doesn't fly. Priests get disciplined, people get excommunicated and so forth. In Reformed churches all you can do is be like 'I don't agree with that church' and go to a different one, or end up not going to one because you can't find one that you agree with or whatever. But there is no mechanism to prevent this rot, and it exists because people can essentially interpret the Bible however they please and if people like what they say enough they have themselves a church and there's nothing anyone can do about it, other than lament at the state of modern Christianity.
Click to expand...
Church discipline has been a feature in every Reformed church from the beginning. It is a Biblical precept. What you are complaining about is not something that you can prevent either. If someone doesn't like your church's teaching, they will leave and start a new one. Does that mean your church is to blame for the apostasy? Likewise, the Bible is not to blame for any apostate, whether they be individuals or churches.
 
GodfatherPartTwo said:
Church discipline has been a feature in every Reformed church from the beginning. It is a Biblical precept. What you are complaining about is not something that you can prevent either. If someone doesn't like your church's teaching, they will leave and start a new one. Does that mean your church is to blame for the apostasy? Likewise, the Bible is not to blame for any apostate, whether they be individuals or churches.
Click to expand...

These days, yes someone who is Orthodox could leave the Orthodox church and start their own thing if they could find enough support for it, because that is the state of affairs since the Reformation, where anyone can just start their own denomination, or weird cult or whatever. Prior to that if you wanted to do that, you'd be unlikely to get as far. Arianism for example was stamped out, because the Church had the authority and power structure to ensure that heresy could be dealt with effectively. And now it's back, because that no longer exists.

The world where there are denominations and this is a perfectly acceptable state of affairs is a modern phenomena. If you lived in Anglo Saxon Britain and you didn't like the church, starting your own was not an option that would get you very far.
 
Lawrence87 said:
These days, yes someone who is Orthodox could leave the Orthodox church and start their own thing if they could find enough support for it, because that is the state of affairs since the Reformation, where anyone can just start their own denomination, or weird cult or whatever.
Click to expand...
Hate to break it to you, but your church apostatized from Rome well before the Reformation. Even if you want to spin it the other way and say "Rome apostatized from us," the fact remains that schisms have been a reality from the beginning. Ever heard of the Second Council of Ephesus which spawned Oriental Orthodoxy? All of this points to the need for an objective standard, God provided one for us with the Scriptures. But if you say that the Scriptures aren't good enough and that your church's interpretation is, then there isn't anything I can do to stop you.
 
GodfatherPartTwo said:
Hate to break it to you, but your church apostatized from Rome well before the Reformation. Even if you want to spin it the other way and say "Rome apostatized from us," the fact remains that schisms have been a reality from the beginning. Ever heard of the Second Council of Ephesus which spawned Oriental Orthodoxy? All of this points to the need for an objective standard, God provided one for us with the Scriptures. But if you say that the Scriptures aren't good enough and that your church's interpretation is, then there isn't anything I can do to stop you.
Click to expand...
It's evident that they are not good enough in and of themselves based simply off the fact that there exist countless interpretations of them.

People read the Scriptures and conclude that they do not contain the Holy Trinity and so they dismiss it. People read them and conclude that it never explicitly says Christ is God.

You can go "well they didn't read them properly" but according to who? To you? To your understanding? Why should anyone care about your understanding over anyone elses? Anyone can just say to anyone else that they aren't reading it properly.

If you say those who deny Christ's divinity or the Holy Trinity are a fringe case, then you are appealing to a consensus outside of Scripture itself.

If the Bible is sufficient how can so many different people read it and come to so many different conclusions? And furthermore by what measure do we assess them for their accuracy? Who gets to decide. You already alluded to this several times. You do. That's all. Every individual gets to decide what they think it means, and they are right because they say so.

It is also demonstrably untrue that the Scriptures are sufficient. Christ did not hand out the New Testament, He started a church. The New Testament did not exist at the inception of the church so there is no way that it can possibly be said to be sufficient for Christianity because Christianity preceeded it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top