P
Philthy
Guest
I won’t agree that it (sola scriptura) is either, but I will point out some problems with it. One is its arbitrary nature: if you say the 66 books are inspired, and I say the 73, and the fellow over there the Book of Mormon, and another the Koran, how can we come to a consensus?
All truth comes from God.
All of us have received the “inner light” telling us what is inspired.
No, some - or all - of us obviously have not unless you are prepared to say that God purposely leads some astray in their quest for the truth.
One must go to some other criterion to evaluate that “inner light”. Historical data, for example, could be examined to determine if one is correct in the subjective evaluation one has.
Oh really? How exactly will historical data, which by its very nature is not a direct means of accessing Truth going to accomplish this? Sorry. You have predicated your search for truth on “leaning on your own understanding”
But then God, being God, might decide to break the rule and tell you what He wrote. He’s not bound by human logical constraints.
Correct, but largely irrelevent and off-topic.
A second problem is that Scripture requires some kind of interpretative framework, a tradition if you will, for reading.
Which is inherently imperfect.
But I think we can overtax the requirement for sophisticated theological and historical nuanced understanding and read the plain words of Scripture in their clarity and be saved, without an authoritative church structure telling us what it means, as long as it has been translated into a language we can understand. The Holy Spirit will speak to us in the Scriptures and overcome all sorts of problems.
Sounds good, but when one examines the REALITY of what has happened to people who adhere to the largely unbiblical scenary you espouse above, one is confronted with the FACT that those people arrive at diametrically opposed views on very big issues considered foundational to Christianity. Is Jesus God, for example, is a big issue. There are others also. The reality is that the system you describe does not work and either the system must be abandoned or the need to accept the system will justify compromising what Christianity is and who God is.
All truth comes from God.
All of us have received the “inner light” telling us what is inspired.
No, some - or all - of us obviously have not unless you are prepared to say that God purposely leads some astray in their quest for the truth.
One must go to some other criterion to evaluate that “inner light”. Historical data, for example, could be examined to determine if one is correct in the subjective evaluation one has.
Oh really? How exactly will historical data, which by its very nature is not a direct means of accessing Truth going to accomplish this? Sorry. You have predicated your search for truth on “leaning on your own understanding”
But then God, being God, might decide to break the rule and tell you what He wrote. He’s not bound by human logical constraints.
Correct, but largely irrelevent and off-topic.
A second problem is that Scripture requires some kind of interpretative framework, a tradition if you will, for reading.
Which is inherently imperfect.
But I think we can overtax the requirement for sophisticated theological and historical nuanced understanding and read the plain words of Scripture in their clarity and be saved, without an authoritative church structure telling us what it means, as long as it has been translated into a language we can understand. The Holy Spirit will speak to us in the Scriptures and overcome all sorts of problems.
Sounds good, but when one examines the REALITY of what has happened to people who adhere to the largely unbiblical scenary you espouse above, one is confronted with the FACT that those people arrive at diametrically opposed views on very big issues considered foundational to Christianity. Is Jesus God, for example, is a big issue. There are others also. The reality is that the system you describe does not work and either the system must be abandoned or the need to accept the system will justify compromising what Christianity is and who God is.