Sola scripture from satan

[moondweller]

I do believe that “Sola Scriptura” is satanic. However, the argument over it has nothing to do with the divinity or infallibility of Scripture, it is an argument about order and protocol. Those who believe in “Sola Scriptura” present Christians with an “every man for himself” religion.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Fundamentally, Sola Scriptura states that EVERY man (layman and clergy), is personally responsible to the written, inerrant, Word of God. Especially those in pastoral and teaching positions (James 3:1). It does not present an “every man for himself religion,” but rather renders every man (layman and clergy) subordinate and personally responsible to the only source we have that inerrantly defines the “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) and preserved in writing.

Sola Scriptura rightly assumes that every man, born of the Spirit, can readily understand the essentials of the faith which are plainly laid down in the Scriptures. As Augustine himself stated:"In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life, to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want. -Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)

Catholics do not believe in “Sola Scriptura”, not because we view Scriptures in any less of a light than those who do, but because in finalizing doctrine, settling disputes, and maintaining unity we look to hierarchy of the Church entrusted with the Holy Spirit to maintain order.

Sola Scriptura states that there is no higher authority for the Body of Christ (the church) in this age than the written Word of God. If men (layman or clergy) pervert them (the Scriptures), then they will receive their just judgment. If any man (layman or clergy) upholds their integrity in truth, he will receive his reward at the judgment seat of Christ. Sola Scriptura equips the layman to test the teachings of the clergy, and equips the clergy to deliver to the layman the “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Sola Scriptura works to prevent totally apostasy in the Church Christ Himself is building.

 

[moondweller]

Your definition of Sola ecclesia is:Who defines your faith and morals? If you say Scripture alone does that, what makes your view any better than any other Christian that says the same thing, even though you disagree on a matter of faith (or morals)? Doesn’t that make you a Sola ecclesian also, even though your ecclesia has a population of one?

No. I don’t claim to be the final authority. Matters concerning faith and morals are really quite clear in the Scriptures - even a child can understand them. Maybe that’s why its adults who apostatize and Jesus said in Matt. 18:3, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven…”

 

[anthony022071]

Nothing could be further from the truth. Fundamentally, Sola Scriptura states that EVERY man (layman and clergy), is personally responsible to the written, inerrant, Word of God. Especially those in pastoral and teaching positions (James 3:1). It does not present an “every man for himself religion,” but rather renders every man (layman and clergy) subordinate and personally responsible to the only source we have that inerrantly defines the “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) and preserved in writing.

Sola Scriptura rightly assumes that every man, born of the Spirit, can readily understand the essentials of the faith which are plainly laid down in the Scriptures. Church Christ Himself is building.

The fact is that not every man born of the Spirit does understand,or even wants to understand. An infallible Bible calls for an infallible interpreter. The end result of sola scriptura is do-it-yourself religion,or religion which has as it’s unofficial magisterium in the protestant seminaries and colleges,which are all agreed upon their rejection of certain doctrines of the Catholic Church. And that concensus among protestants has to do with the continued carrying-out of the programs begun by Luther and Calvin. As much as protestants may seem to uphold the liberty of the individual conscience,the end result is biblical interpretation filtered through the ideas of Luther and Calvin,and doctrines maintained through group and peer pressure. The way that sola scriptura is perpetuated reminds me of the ideology of capitalism. Everybody is free to have their own private enterprise and to compete,but challenging the basic tenets of the ideology is out of the question.

 

[Yaholo]

Sola Scriptura rightly assumes that every man, born of the Spirit, can readily understand the essentials of the faith which are plainly laid down in the Scriptures…

the two logical problems here are:

1. We do not know who, in reality, is genuinely born of the Spirit or not. That means anyone who claims to be “of the Spirit” you have to deem worthy of interpreting Scripture.
2. If all who are “born of the Spirit” can understand
   Scripture, then why so many disagreements? Are you proposing the thousands of denominations are all from the Holy Spirit?

 

[chet]

Actually I agree with the first statement with the caveat that the Church is not your denomination.

A.D. 33 Jesus ascends to heaven. A.D. 51-125 The New Testament books are written.[It is believed Ignatius was ordained by Peter himself while Peter was the bishop of Antioch. Ignatius must have worshiped with Peter and Paul and John. He lived with or near them and was an understudy of these special apostles. Ignatius is known and revered as an authentic witness to the traditions and practice of the apostles. **A letter from Ignatius is the earliest recorded use the word catholic in reference to the Church that we have. On his way to Rome, under military escort to the Coliseum, where he would be devoured by lions for his faith, he wrote,

** “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church**” (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8) A.D. 110 .]

AD 140 Marcion, a businessman in Rome, taught that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the Old Testament, and Abba, the kind father of the New Testament. Marcion eliminated the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he was anti-Semitic, kept from the New Testament only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke’s gospel (he deleted references to Jesus’s Jewishness). Marcion’s “New Testament”, the first to be compiled, forced the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four Gospels and Letters of Paul. The periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome . c. A.D. 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter. The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of 367 A.D. A.D. 382 Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order. A.D.393 the Council of Hippo, which began “arguing it out.” Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius. ** A.D.397** The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch).
( time line by Mark Bonocore & Bob Stanley ) ** It is worth noting that Ignatius was likely referring to the church as catholic prior to all the New Testament writings even being complete! **

Here is a problem for those who don’t want 'to listen to the opinions of fallible men.'
Every time they quote a scripture passage they are staking their salvation on the infallibility of the Catholic Church to have put the right books in the Bible.

 

[chet]

Matt. 18:15-17 has to do with exercising discipline within a local church assembly. When it says “tell it to the church,” it means the whole, local, church assembly and together, as a church, they are to shun the offender.

It’s not about the infallibility of high ranking officers (Bishops) or their sovereign authority over the people. That concept comes form “sola ecclesia,” not the Scriptures.

"You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" ( Ignatius of Antioch. Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8 ) A.D. 110 .

 

[chet]

When Jesus prayed that we be “one” in Him, He was not praying for outward, religious conformity.

**That sounds like a infallible dogmatic declaration if I ever heard one!
**

 

[chet]

Your definition of Sola ecclesia is:Who defines your faith and morals? If you say Scripture alone does that, what makes your view any better than any other Christian that says the same thing, even though you disagree on a matter of faith (or morals)? Doesn’t that make you a Sola ecclesian also, even though your ecclesia has a population of one?

I was thinking the exact same thing. Sola Pope Moondweller.

 

[w_stewart]

No man is infallible (save the Theoanthropic Man).

The Scriptures don’t become the written “Word of God” by men declaring them so. They are inherently so because they’re inspired by the Holy Spirit (inspired meaning “God-breathed”). It is God who is infallible, therefore His Word is inerrant. The Scriptures became the written Word of God the very moment they were penned, men merely recognized them.

Who told you that the Bible is infallible? Who told you that the Bible is Word of God?

 

[johnnydigit]

No. I don’t claim to be the final authority. Matters concerning faith and morals are really quite clear in the Scriptures - even a child can understand them. Maybe that’s why its adults who apostatize and Jesus said in Matt. 18:3, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven…”

quite clear eh? so a child can quite clearly know what is right regarding abortion, contraception, murder in warfare, homosexual marriage, and all the other issues adults still have trouble with? trying to dismiss the necessity of authority… good luck.

the two logical problems here are:

1. We do not know who, in reality, is genuinely born of the Spirit or not. That means anyone who claims to be “of the Spirit” you have to deem worthy of interpreting Scripture.
2. If all who are “born of the Spirit” can understand
   Scripture, then why so many disagreements? Are you proposing the thousands of denominations are all from the Holy Spirit?

this is usually when it gets really quiet… crickets

 

[Deconi]

**No. I don’t claim to be the final authority. **

Yes, you do. According to Protestantism, you must! This is why when you disagree with your Pastor and cannot come to an agreement about a passage of Scripture, you either leave and find another Reformed church that professes what you have ‘interpreted’ from the passage, or leave and start your own denomination.

Funnily enough, that is how you find Truth. You just have to add The Catholic Church into that researching process.

That fact that you’re here and arguing reflects the ‘turmoil’ of conflict within you.

Then, again…maybe you’re just trying to prove Catholics wrong to validate something you’ve learned.

 

[chet]

I was thinking the exact same thing. Sola Pope Moondweller.

In advance Sorry moondweler! Please do not take offense! Sincerely,Chet

 

[moondweller]

anthony022071:

The fact is that not every man born of the Spirit does understand,or even wants to understand.

If you’re saying that he can’t understand and has no desire to understand the Scriptures then I would seriously doubt that he is born of the Spirit. And I certainly wouldn’t install him into a church office which is said to have spiritual authority over me.

An infallible Bible calls for an infallible interpreter.

Then of necessity that would call for an infallible interpreter of the interpretation of the infallible interpreter - and it continues on and on and on.

 

[moondweller]

Yaholo:

the two logical problems here are:

1. We do not know who, in reality, is genuinely born of the Spirit or not.

That would be true of your Pope, Bishops and priests, as well.

That means anyone who claims to be “of the Spirit” you have to deem worthy of interpreting Scripture.

Not so. Sola Scriptural recognizes that the only inerrant authority regarding the faith is the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures. It doesn’t deem everybody worthy of accurately interpreting them. In fact Paul exhorts Timothy to be diligent to present himself approved to God who does not need to ashamed, accurately handling the Word of God (2 Tim. 1:15). The Scriptures must be studied that the believer grows in the grace and knowledge of Christ (2 Pet. 3:18). Also, Christ raises up teachers within the Body for its edification (Acts 13:1; 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11). However, Peter, in the Scriptures, warns us of false teachers that will rise up amongst the Body (2 Pet. 2:1). Now what makes sola ecclesia precarious is when these false teachers ambitiously reach high ranking positions (offices) to which infallibility is assigned. Apart from sola Scriptura believers have no means or authority to test the teachings of such men they’re commanded, by their church, to follow.

1. If all who are “born of the Spirit” can understand
   Scripture, then why so many disagreements? Are you proposing the thousands of denominations are all from the Holy Spirit?

All who are born of the Spirit can understand the essentials of the faith revealed in the Scriptures. And although there are disagreements on non-essentials amongst Protestant churches, MANY are in complete agreement (unity) as to the essentials, such as salvation by grace through faith alone. I have had sweet fellowship with those born of the Spirit in other denominations. In fact, one wouldn’t know that we didn’t all go to the same church. It’s not a denomination that binds us together. Our unity is our new identity “in Christ.” But I’ll be the first to admit that within “Protestantism” apostasy is growing. Thank God for the Scriptures which do not change and we understand “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” The Scriptures themselves warn us that in the latter days of this church age such things will occur.

 

[moondweller]

chet:

A.D. 33 Jesus ascends to heaven. A.D. 51-125 The New Testament books are written.[It is believed Ignatius was ordained by Peter himself while Peter was the bishop of Antioch. Ignatius must have worshiped with Peter and Paul and John. He lived with or near them and was an understudy of these special apostles. Ignatius is known and revered as an authentic witness to the traditions and practice of the apostles. A letter from Ignatius is the earliest recorded use the word catholic in reference to the Church that we have. On his way to Rome, under military escort to the Coliseum, where he would be devoured by lions for his faith, he wrote,

Quote:
“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8) A.D. 110 .]

Certainly you’re not contending that the epistles of Ignatius are Holy Spirit inspired, are you? It is well accepted that the letters are more or less corrupted by interpolation. The word “catholic” simply meant universal. It still applies to the invisible church today. I don’t think one can honestly read into those early writings the later developed concept of the word “Catholic” which the Western church applied distinctly to itself.

AD 140 Marcion, a businessman in Rome, taught that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the Old Testament, and Abba, the kind father of the New Testament.

So based on the Apostolic teachings found in the Scriptures I would deem Marcion a false teacher and an unbeliever. I certainly wouldn’t give him an “infallible” church office.

 

[moondweller]

w_stewart:

Who told you that the Bible is infallible? Who told you that the Bible is Word of God?

The Scriptures themselves which tell me God cannot lie. The same Scriptures tell me that ALL Scripture is inspired (God-breathed) by the same God who cannot lie.

 

[moondweller]

quite clear eh? so a child can quite clearly know what is right regarding abortion, contraception, murder in warfare, homosexual marriage, and all the other issues adults still have trouble with? trying to dismiss the necessity of authority… good luck.

No. My point was that even children can be raised in the truths of the faith (and Godly morality) as revealed in the Scriptures; and because of them grow in wisdom. Timothy was raised in the Scriptures since childhood:

2 Tim 3:15 “…and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

 

[moondweller]

I was thinking the exact same thing. Sola Pope Moondweller.

In advance Sorry moondweler! Please do not take offense! Sincerely,Chet

No offense taken, chet. I understand my arguments might seem that way to you.

 

[moondweller]

Yes, you do. According to Protestantism, you must! This is why when you disagree with your Pastor and cannot come to an agreement about a passage of Scripture, you either leave and find another Reformed church that professes what you have ‘interpreted’ from the passage, or leave and start your own denomination.

You have evidence that I’ve done such a thing?

Funnily enough, that is how you find Truth.

Is it?

That fact that you’re here and arguing reflects the ‘turmoil’ of conflict within you.

Does it?

Then, again…maybe you’re just trying to prove Catholics wrong to validate something you’ve learned.

I’m here to refute the idea that “sola Scriptura” was invented by Satan. Thereby rendering all who adhere to it followers of Satan.

 

[johnnydigit]

All who are born of the Spirit can understand the essentials of the faith revealed in the Scriptures. And although there are disagreements on non-essentials amongst Protestant churches, MANY are in complete agreement (unity) as to the essentials, such as salvation by grace through faith alone. I have had sweet fellowship with those born of the Spirit in other denominations. In fact, one wouldn’t know that we didn’t all go to the same church. It’s not a denomination that binds us together. Our unity is our new identity “in Christ.” But I’ll be the first to admit that within “Protestantism” apostasy is growing. Thank God for the Scriptures which do not change and we understand “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” The Scriptures themselves warn us that in the latter days of this church age such things will occur.

unfortunately agreeing on only the “essentials” doesn’t make for a complete, unified or stable church. you don’t need to admit “protestant apostasy” is growing, since it is a logical and inevitable consequence of having no authority which we learn in elementary history class.

every civilization, organization, and government in history has had organization and authority. every reputable body i can think of has a type of hierarchy to maintain order. we have court systems to help us to interpret our laws.

can you please address what happens to the “non-essentials” that are disagreed upon?

what exactly is “essential” or “non-essential”?

i heard that the Holy Spirit maintains order. without order, there is chaos. chaos is not from God. those not from God would like the dismantling of His Church. pray for us.