quote:
This makes me think that you don't understand what sola scriptura actually means.
We know exactly what it means. It means that United Methodists can be practicing homosexuals and still be pastors and still get to Heaven, according to Sola Scriptura and how these Methodists interpret the Bible.

No, it doesn't. The United Methodists (the majority at this point, though there are still many who have remained faithful to God's word on these issues) have abandoned the Scriptures as their authority and have adopted a false view of love, tolerance, and inclusivity as their rule or standard, interpreting the Bible according to this higher authority. So no, it's not just about interpretation and hermeneutics but what is the highest goal or standard of authority.

Sola scriptura--as I keep saying--is about authority. It's about holding ourselves and other Christians to the standard of the truth of God's word above all else, for His glory alone (soli deo gloria).

quote:
We know that when you point to them and say "But you are reading it wrong", they are pointing back at you accusing you of the exact same thing.

Then you counter with "But you are not using proper hermeneutics to interpret the Bible". Then the Methodists accuse you of the exact same thing.

Anyone can say whatever they want, but it's God's word alone that must be the judge of all of our words. What's foundational to all of this is understanding who God is, what His character and attributes are. These are basic things that are clear in the Scriptures that there is little debate on. Anyone who claims the name of Christian must believe some very basic things about God which are stated in the creeds of the church but are drawn from the Scriptures, themselves, primary of which is that God is the essence and origin of Truth and He cannot lie. If God can lie, then we cannot trust anything the Bible (or any form/method of revelation from God) says anyway, so all discussion is moot and truly relative; God would be pretty much completely unknowable and we wouldn't be able to know what was true and what was false on a foundational level.

Once we establish and agree that Truth comes from God, that He cannot lie, and that He has revealed things through revelation that we should know, then we have to realize that what is in the Scriptures (at the very least, if we agree that the Bible is God's word, whatever else might be out there) cannot contradict itself if it is really God's word. If it can contradict itself, then God is speaking against Himself (lying). But since we've established that God cannot lie, if the Bible is God's word, then it cannot contradict itself, and if it cannot contradict itself, then where there are passages or verses where there is an apparent contradiction, we have to interpret it in a way that harmonizes with the rest of the Bible and doesn't create other contradictions elsewhere.

The problem I see with the UMC and other denominations that embrace these liberal viewpoints is that they don't have a high regard for the word of God as God's holy and infallible word. The first thing all false teachers (and enemies of Christ) do is attack the word of God ("has God really said?"), and the most common way liberals do this in our age is by spiritualizing the text, taking it completely out of its context, or ignoring the rest of what the Bible has to say on that issue (it can't contradict itself, after all). Rejecting that the Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God is the main culprit here. The number of Americans--including identifying Christians--that believe that the Bible is the literal word of God and true continues to decline each year. The view that the Bible is written by fallible men with a fallible message with errors strewn throughout and is full of fables, myths, and other untrue messages written by primitive people continues to grow each year.

So no, it isn't strictly about interpretation. It's about authority and the very nature of what the Scriptures are. Those who reject that the Bible is God's word are not going to view it with the reverence and care that it deserves and are more likely to make it say absolutely whatever they want it to say to fit whatever prior beliefs that they have.

quote:
To both denominations I would remind them that according to Bible Alone as originally defined, anybody could open a Bible and discern ultimate Truth.

Sola scriptura is about authority to interpret the Scriptures correctly, not to believe anything one wants to believe about them. The doctrine doesn't allow the Bible to be a buffet that people can pick and choose what they want from it. It means that the Bible alone is the sole infallible rule for faith and life for the Christian. We are to be governed ultimately by God's word, seeking to truly understand it rightly, not imposing our own sinful desires onto it.

quote:
You didn't need knowledge of any secret teachings like hermeneutics. The Gnostics taught that one needed knowledge of the Secret teachings to get to the Truth. You guys are the New Gnostics.

In addition to not understanding sola scriptura, it seems you don't understand hermeneutics, either

It's not a secret code. It's just reading the text as it was intended to be understood. God spoke using human authors who wrote in human language. If you can understand typical man-made writings you can understand--at least conceptually--what the Bible is saying. Reading the Bible within its own context with the understanding that it's God's word and cannot contradict itself is really the only prerequisite you need in order to rightly interpret it for most issues. God gave His revelation to the common man in a public way. He didn't give it secretly or in an unverifiable way like the Catholics seem to claim with oral traditions that were not documented and weren't believed (at least not with historical evidence) in most cases until hundreds of years after Christ's ascension. Undocumented oral tradition is more Gnostic than what I'm claiming.

This post was edited on 5/20/24 at 1:43 pm