Well you are the one here that is claiming it is satanic. And since you are the one that is making the claim, it is up to you to substantiate it.
My personal opinion is that the revisionists may have been influenced by not-so-good forces when they came up with it. But my opinions are besides the point. I’m not dealing with that riht now, it’s just what I think. At the very least it’s man-made.
You stated that Sola Scriptura is false because the Bible does not tell you what books of the Bible are canonical. Since every definition of Sola Scriptura I have heard of acknowledges this (at the very mininum the one my church and myself work with), this is a strawman.
Definition, according to Wikipedia:
“Sola Scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.”
I see no exception to the Canon by this definition, nor have I ever seen that definition anywhere except by you, Mr.Mozart.
Wikipedia continues: “Sola Scriptura may be contrasted with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaching, in which doctrine is authentically taught by the legitimate teaching authority of the Church which draws on the Deposit of Faith which consists of Sacred Tradition, of which Sacred Scripture is a subset.”
A better question for Sola Scripturists would be: What invalidates oral tradition?
Actually the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. So if you are asserting that Sola Scriptura is satan’s greatest tool, then it is up to you to define it and prove it. If you assert that Sola Scriptura is definitely false it is up to you to define it and then prove it. If I assert that Sola Scriptura is definitely true it is up to me to define it and prove it.
Yep. I was saying as far as the revisionists (i.e., the "reformers) were concerned, they had the burden of proof when they broke away from the Catholic Church.
There is one more logical possibility. Sola Scriptura might be neither definitely true or definitely false (at least as far as our ability to comprehend and prove goes). Then nobody is left to prove anything and we are left with a bunch of opinions with a certain amount of supporting evidence. In that case I think it best if we let each other live in peace and cut the inflammatory rhetoric please.
This, my friends, is an example of fleeing the arguement, by throwing your hands up in the air and saying, "well, it can’t be difinitively proved either way, so we might as well live in peace and cut the “inflammatory rhetoric.” A-ha! But then he goes on to use inflammatory rhetoric, saying “others” say it, when he himself probably agrees with them and wants to sling mud:
And that is fine if it is understood that it is your opinion. But others come here with the opinion that the pope is the antiChrist and Catholicism is the whore of Babylon. They usually get booted by the moderators.
Then he goes on with the “Oh, poor, persecuted me! Woe is me! The moderators would kick me out but they won’t kick out these vile Catholic swine! Woe is me!” Lame. Really lame.
Well first of all a non-denomination by definition is not a denomination.
I count it as a one-“church” denomination, because the only difference is that others have more communities in them.
Second of all, anybody can make up numbers. However, your opinion carries weight only if the numbers you use are well supported by facts.
My opinion doesn’t have to carry weight because it’s my personal opinion. According to the World Christian database, there are 9,000+ denominations, not including independent communities, which, as I have stated, I include. After all, they’re all Protestants.
but we know, Church has one Revelation - in Jesus Christ -** Solum Verbum** - this Verbum is Jesus (John 1:1), and this Revelation is present in Scripture and Tradition.
