Sola scripture from satan

[chet]

Now you are touching on the issues of oral communication of the gospel prior to the writing and canonization of the gospel.

Now remember…Sola Scriptura is just a title…and it may not be a particularly good title on at that…depending on what the underlying belief system is.

What you have to do is ask how this phenomenon fits into the theology and whether at least the explanation could possibly be true. But at any rate the oral transmission of the gospel could hardly disprove Sola Scriptura unless it is a very extreme variant.

Remember, there is no unified definition of Sola Scriptura. The best you can do is to prove the definition that a particular adherent uses is false. For me personally, if I do believe in Sola Scriptura it is only in a very limited sense and I personally have no problem with oral communication of the gospel in the times of the apostles.

That would be important if I wanted to prove Sola Scriptura as definitely true. That I have no interest in doing since it is unprovable either way (as is your system of authority). The best I can do is state what I believe and why.

However I will note that the reason why I don’t believe there are any other sources of truth that are incapable of error is that the Bible does not identify any. Otherwise you could just as easily get me to believe in the book of Mormon.

So your ultimate source of authority is"ME AND THE BIBLE AND ANY EXTRA-BIBLICAL INFLUENCE I EXCEPT,ie;Wesleyan, Evangelical,Both of which came many centuries after the Bible." very convenient! Question.Since Jesus was a Jew why are their Christians at all?

 

[moondweller]

St. Paul the Apostle on following Apostolic Tradition 1 Thessalonians Ch 2 Vs 13
2 Thessalonians Ch2 Vs 15
1 Corinthians 11 Vs 1-2

Was the deity of Christ (challenged after the Apostolic age), settled by so-called “oral tradition” or by that which was Holy Spirit inspired, written and preserved for later generations? What do any of us know about Christ other than that which was written (Old and New Testaments) and preserved? What do any of us know about salvation other than that which was preserved in Holy Writ? Neither you nor I were there when Paul spoke to the churches. But we do have the inerrant Scriptures.

 

[Metaron]

Yup. Wikipedia is sure the definitive source for theological knowledge.

Well, you refused to give a definition, other than that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura excludes canon formation (You’re the first one I eard that from) so I was free to get my own definition. I asked you several times, but no answer.

I will let you in on something…Wikipedia simplifies. Why don’t you let those who believe in Sola Scripture tell you what it means and how the canon fits into it…

I asked you this like five times, and all you would say is that it excludes the formation of the canon. Why wouldn’t you answer a simple question?

Separate issue

Yup as I said, if one want to say it is definitively true, they have the burden of proof.

But you are saying it is definitively false. Therefore you have the burden of proof.

Yup. I do. Just as you have the burden of proving it true. We agree on this.

Just a hint…I give great weight to ability to show charity to those who disagree when evaluating a faith that is not mine. Your assuming the worst of motives in my comments and sarcastically mocking me is not casting your denomination in good light in my estimation.

Have I shown you a lack of charity? Lighten up? I was being sarcastic, but I wasn’t mocking you. You’re beliefs are sincere, I’m sure, but the “Whore of Babylon” line brings up bad memories… And, by the way you said it, it sounded accusatory to me. My apologies if I was wrong about you motives, and I take it back.

But it is obvious that you don’t understand the rules of logic and unprovable assertions. That’s ok…just something you might want to educate yourself about.

I haven’t made any unprovable assertions. I just stated my personal opinion that Sala Scriptura may be satanic, and that’s my opinion. I don’t have to defend it, because it isn’t an official belief of my Church.

If Catholicism is really the one true church that it claims for itself, I think I have a right to expect this to be reflected in how they interact with others. You are reinforcing my beliefs that you claims of superiority lack substance.

I’m not officially Roman Catholic yet. I’m really an Anglican going through RCIA.

For the record I think the moderators here do a fine job. They actually show less bias than a couple of non-Catholic forums I have been on.

Good. At first I thought you were disparaging the moderators.

If you want to redefine the word denomination over and above what the dictionary says, go right ahead. I will stick to the dictionary thank you.

Like I said, for practical purposes, I count them. However, I gave you the WCD count, 9,000 (a lot, in other words) and you haven’t even responded to that. I hope you’re not trying to dodge the issue.

 

[Jlcastagna]

I hope you’re not trying to dodge the issue.

Well, he totally ignored my last post. I suppose it was to much to respond to at one time or maybe?

 

[Metaron]

…If I use the exact logic you use I can say with confidence that the assumption of Mary can not be traced to either the apostles or Scripture. Therefore it is not from God but an invention inspired by Satan.

The issue was not whether on not it can be traced to the Apostles and Scripture. It’s whether it can be traced to Oral Tradition and Scripture. By the way, I disagree about the whole satanic part. I personally think that it is, but, it could as well just be a man-made doctrine.

 

[Metaron]

Like I said, for practical purposes, I count them. However, I gave you the WCD count, 9,000 (a lot, in other words) and you haven’t even responded to that. I hope you’re not trying to dodge the issue.

What do you want me to do, count them as 1/2 denominations? 1/5 of a denomination? Regardless, read my large rebuttal post and respond, please.

 

[angelusm]

I don’t want to upset anyone.
But I was looking for the real inventor of sola scripture.
Correct me if I am wrong but when satan was tempting Jesus did he not use scripture we he tempted Jesus to jump from the high ledge?

Also is it not because of sola scripture that Christians have broken into so many groups,
each group claiming sola scripture
as its athority.
satan would love to build thousands of churches, a great apostasy…was it not sola scripture
that was his greatest tool?
Other then nationality and culter which seems to be what separates
Orthodox, Sola scripture seems to be the devils greatest tool.

Wasn’t it Martin Luther who invented “Sola Scriptura”? All I know it’s definitely not in the Scripture Protestants believe in their own infallibility but they call it “infallibility of the Scripture”. Sweet, isn’t it? Every protestant with the Bible is a pope. God doesn’t seem to respect “Sola Scriptura”, vide Fatima and many other apparitions. Protestants obviously reject them and say they are satanictic. As a result they call pope antichrist and the CC - a whore of Babylon. Poor protestants, I strongly disagree with their teaching, but I feel sorry for them because they are getting deeper and deeper into a big ****.

 

[mozart-250]

Well, you refused to give a definition, other than that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura excludes canon formation (You’re the first one I eard that from) so I was free to get my own definition. I asked you several times, but no answer.

I asked you this like five times, and all you would say is that it excludes the formation of the canon. Why wouldn’t you answer a simple question?

Well if you asked me that somehow I missed it. But since you are asking now…

I believe what is found in the statement of faith in my church with a couple of qualifications. I don’t know whether this is considered Sola Scriptura. But anyway here it is:

The Bible is the Word of God.

The Bible is the Word of God. We believe that the Bible, in its entirety, is the Word of God, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

My qualifications are these:
(1) You can make the case that the Scripture cited does not support the only part of the statement. However it does support the inspiration and the rule part of the statement.
(2) A minor quibble. I am not sure whether infallible is the best word to use in relationship to the Bible. Strictly speaking the word infallible only applies to processes. But I could make the argument that everything that God does is infallible. And since God inspired the Bible therefore the Bible is incapable of being incorrect (of course this now touches on the issue of inerrancy which is a separate sticky wicket).

(3) There are two ways you can believe the Bible is our “only infallible rule of faith and conduct”. The first way is an active way in which you believe the Bible specifically teaches that of itself. However the second way is a passive way. The passive way acknowledges that the Bible doesn’t explicitely teach that there are no other infallible sources. You simple do not have any reason to believe that any other sources you know of are infallible and are very skeptical that in the future any other sources could be brought forth that you can believe would be on the same level as the Bible…

I believe in the passive version.

As far as the canon goes, the explanation is really simple and I think works with most definitions of Sola Scriptura that I have heard.

The word infallible refers to a process. Only a repeatable process is incapable of being incorrect (Catholicism does use the word infallible in the correct sense. The repeatable process in this case is the pontiff of Rome speaking ex-cathedra on an issue of faith and morals). The creation of the canon is simply an event. An event can of course can be 100% correct. But it is impossible by definition for an event to be incapable of being incorrect.

To illustrate, an event is me getting 100% on a math test. Infallability in math means that it is impossible for me to get anything less than 100% in math (the repeatable process is me taking math tests). Just because I get 100% on a math test does not mean that I am infallible in math.

I haven’t made any unprovable assertions. I just stated my personal opinion that Sala Scriptura may be satanic, and that’s my opinion. I don’t have to defend it, because it isn’t an official belief of my Church.

If that is your personal opinion fine. But I don’t hold that opinion.

Good. At first I thought you were disparaging the moderators.

If you thought that…sheesh you have a suspicious nature. All I was doing was making the offhand observation that those who come here with the “Whore of Babylon” / “Pope is the AntiChrist” canard usually get booted. I think that is a true observation. It was really nothing.

Like I said, for practical purposes, I count them. However, I gave you the WCD count, 9,000 (a lot, in other words) and you haven’t even responded to that. I hope you’re not trying to dodge the issue.

If WCD is a reputable source I won’t argue that for now. I am not terribly hung up on numbers. I do know that the 30K figure is not accurate because I read a reputable Catholic source refuting that figure.

BTW if you want to count each non-denominational church as a denomination, you end up with more than 30K denominations. Why not then say there are 500K or 1M or something really big number protestant denominations (no I do not know what the number of independent churches worldwide is).

 

[mozart-250]

So your ultimate source of authority is"ME AND THE BIBLE AND ANY EXTRA-BIBLICAL INFLUENCE I EXCEPT,ie;Wesleyan, Evangelical,Both of which came many centuries after the Bible." very convenient! Question.Since Jesus was a Jew why are their Christians at all?

Umm…I think you are using the debating technique of “putting words in my mouth that I did not say”. Nice move.

 

[mozart-250]

The issue was not whether on not it can be traced to the Apostles and Scripture. It’s whether it can be traced to Oral Tradition and Scripture. By the way, I disagree about the whole satanic part. I personally think that it is, but, it could as well just be a man-made doctrine.

The problem here is that when I read 1 Thess. the only tradition that I am told to hold in high regard is the tradition which originates from the apostles. Otherwise we could just as easily be dealing with the traditions of men and other good ideas.

The only tradition that I can be sure originated with the apostles is that which they wrote down.

 

[w_stewart]

Very simple. Catholics are fond of saying that just because say the assumption of Mary is not explicitely in the Bible and there is no record of the apostles having taught it does not necessarily mean that it is false. Catholics btw are correct in their logic here.

The apostles might not teach the Assumption but their successors do. The apostolic Tradition does.

If I use the exact logic you use I can say with confidence that the assumption of Mary can not be traced to either the apostles or Scripture. Therefore it is not from God but an invention inspired by Satan.

Sir, Sola Scriptura is not supported either by the Bible, by the Tradition and by the apostles themselves, or even by the apostolic Fathers. It is totally strange from the apostolic faith. The Assumption, on the other hand, had been supported by the Bible, by the Tradition, by the apostolic Fathers.

See the difference?

Neither can you find in the Bible that the Assumption of Mary is not Satanic. See the exact same logic you are using to say Sola Scriptura is satanic, I can use to say the assumption is.

It is not satanic because the Tradition and the apostolic Fathers support it. The Sola Scriptura is an invention of a rebellious fellow.

 

[w_stewart]

The problem here is that when I read 1 Thess. the only tradition that I am told to hold in high regard is the tradition which originates from the apostles. Otherwise we could just as easily be dealing with the traditions of men and other good ideas.

The only tradition that I can be sure originated with the apostles is that which they wrote down.

Second Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Thessalonians

Chapter 2

14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

 

[mozart-250]

Second Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Thessalonians

Chapter 2

14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

My Bible says something similar:

So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us

In other words, not just any tradition but tradition that has its source the apostles of Jesus Christ.

 

[mozart-250]

The apostles might not teach the Assumption but their successors do. The apostolic Tradition does.

If the apostles did not teach the Assumption (and I have no reason to believe they did) it is not a part of apostolic tradition.

Sir, Sola Scriptura is not supported either by the Bible, by the Tradition and by the apostles themselves, or even by the apostolic Fathers. It is totally strange from the apostolic faith. The Assumption, on the other hand, had been supported by the Bible, by the Tradition, by the apostolic Fathers.

See the difference?

Umm…first of all if you define Sola Scriptura as I defined it in a previous post, it most definitely is supported by Scripture. Specifically it is supported by the silence of Scripture in that Scripture gives me absolutely no warrant to believe in any other source as incapable of error. That is more than I see in Scripture concerning the assumption of Mary where Scripture is totally silent.

There is no record of any belief in the assumption of Mary until at least the 300 time frame or so.

It is not satanic because the Tradition and the apostolic Fathers support it. The Sola Scriptura is an invention of a rebellious fellow.

The idea that there is no other infallible faith source is rooted in Scripture in that Scripture does not identify any other source that it incapable of being incorrect.

 

[SyCarl]

Sir, Sola Scriptura is not supported either by the Bible, by the Tradition and by the apostles themselves, or even by the apostolic Fathers. It is totally strange from the apostolic faith. The Assumption, on the other hand, had been supported by the Bible, by the Tradition, by the apostolic Fathers.

See the difference?

It is not satanic because the Tradition and the apostolic Fathers support it. The Sola Scriptura is an invention of a rebellious fellow.

Where is it supported by the apostolic fathers? The Catholic Encyclopedia doesn’t seem to think it was mentioned by them.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first.

newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

 

[Metaron]

…My qualifications are these:
(1) You can make the case that the Scripture cited does not support the only part of the statement. However it does support the inspiration and the rule part of the statement.

Yeah. On the whole, your observations are most enlightening. I see now, that Sola Scriptura isn’t supposed to be made in reference to the actual canon, huh? Interesting…

(2) A minor quibble. I am not sure whether infallible is the best word to use in relationship to the Bible. Strictly speaking the word infallible only applies to processes. But I could make the argument that everything that God does is infallible. And since God inspired the Bible therefore the Bible is incapable of being incorrect (of course this now touches on the issue of inerrancy which is a separate sticky wicket).

Yeah. I think inerrant would be a better term than infallible in this case.

(3) There are two ways you can believe the Bible is our “only infallible rule of faith and conduct”. The first way is an active way in which you believe the Bible specifically teaches that of itself. However the second way is a passive way. The passive way acknowledges that the Bible doesn’t explicitely teach that there are no other infallible sources. You simple do not have any reason to believe that any other sources you know of are infallible and are very skeptical that in the future any other sources could be brought forth that you can believe would be on the same level as the Bible…

I believe in the passive version.

Hm. Very interesting. I think your view is more like Prima Scriptura, or a modified version of Sola Scriptura.

As far as the canon goes, the explanation is really simple and I think works with most definitions of Sola Scriptura that I have heard.

I’m sorry, I must have missed something. How do you know your canon is correct?

…to illustrate, an event is me getting 100% on a math test. Infallability in math means that it is impossible for me to get anything less than 100% in math (the repeatable process is me taking math tests). Just because I get 100% on a math test does not mean that I am infallible in math.

How do you know that the canon is correct?

I

f you thought that…sheesh you have a suspicious nature. All I was doing was making the offhand observation that those who come here with the “Whore of Babylon” / “Pope is the AntiChrist” canard usually get booted. I think that is a true observation. It was really nothing.

You don’t believe that “whore of Babylon” tripe, do you? I merely thought you were saying the moderators were bias. But you said you weren’t and I accept that. No harm done.

BTW if you want to count each non-denominational church as a denomination, you end up with more than 30K denominations. Why not then say there are 500K or 1M or something really big number protestant denominations (no I do not know what the number of independent churches worldwide is).

Geez. That makes my arguement even stronger I think. Do you not agree with me that division and denominationalism are bad things?

 

[cascherman]

Mozart,

Your definition of Sola Scriptura:

The Bible is the Word of God.

The Bible is the Word of God. We believe that the Bible, in its entirety, is the Word of God, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Umm…first of all if you define Sola Scriptura as I defined it in a previous post, it most definitely is supported by Scripture.

You say the Bible supports this definition. I do not agree that the Bible says it is the ONLY infallible rule of faith and conduct. I’ve not seen that. But, I’m open to whatever proof you may have.

 

[mozart-250]

Hm. Very interesting. I think your view is more like Prima Scriptura, or a modified version of Sola Scriptura.

Perhaps. Sola Scriptura is just a title anyway. I have always thought that Prima Scriptura was a more accurate title. Anyway, I will leave it to others to judge whether I believe in Sola Scriptura since I am not hung up on titles.

I’m sorry, I must have missed something. How do you know your canon is correct?

I am not sure I can logically prove it correct. I have come to believe that it is correct based on the unanimous agreement of Christians for 2000 years on the content of the New Testament canon. Although I can’t logically prove it, I believe the preponderence of evidence overwhelmingly support the idea that the fathers got the canon correct.

You don’t believe that “whore of Babylon” tripe, do you?

Umm…no.

Geez. That makes my arguement even stronger I think. Do you not agree with me that division and denominationalism are bad things?

Um…not when you count as a denomination an entity that is not a denomination.

That having been said, I have my doubts whether what we observe now is what Jesus had in mind when He designed the church. Jesus did seem to put a lot of priority into all of us being one.

 

[mozart-250]

Mozart,
You say the Bible supports this definition. I do not agree that the Bible says it is the ONLY infallible rule of faith and conduct. I’ve not seen that. But, I’m open to whatever proof you may have.

As I said the Bible supports this definition primarily from a position of silence. By this I mean, the Bible does not identify any other sources that are “incapable of error”. Therefore, I have no sound reason to accept anything else as “incapable of error”.

 

[cascherman]

I am not sure I can logically prove it correct. I have come to believe that it is correct based on the unanimous agreement of Christians for 2000 years on the content of the New Testament canon. Although I can’t logically prove it, I believe the preponderence of evidence overwhelmingly support the idea that the fathers got the canon correct.

It was not as unanimously agreed upon for 2000 years as you may think. Many of the last books were NOT agree upon. Just like many other doctrinal definitions, the New Testament was defined, setting the Canon in stone and leaving no room for interpretation. This sort of defining is one of the reasons people believe Purgatory was ‘invented’ in the 1500’s, the assumption ‘invented’ in 1950, and the deutorcanon being ‘added’ only after the reformation.
The belief was there long before any of these were defined, but they were not set in stone, as one would say.