Isn't Sola Scriptura itself a type of idolatry? Even if it is the word of God, it's not God himself.

Isn't Sola Scriptura itself a type of idolatry? Even if it is the word of God, it's not God himself.

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sola scriptura is not nuda scriptura

  2. 7 months ago
    Dirk

    Strawman

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Explain. And for honesty's sake I do actually accept

      Sola scriptura is not nuda scriptura

      as a valid answer.

      • 7 months ago
        Dirk

        Sola scriptura does not suggest that scripture is god

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          That's not the point being made. It's about the unyielding reverence shown to the Bible crossing a line to idolatry.

          And if you want to go down that route most Catholics/Orthodoxs/etc would say the same thing about just about everything they're accused of showing idolatry to.

          • 7 months ago
            Dirk

            Are you contending that infallibility is idolatrous or that sola scriptura is idolatrous?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            yes

          • 7 months ago
            Dirk

            Go back

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Eat a dick

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sola Scriptura being idolatry. Again

            Sola scriptura is not nuda scriptura

            is an acceptable answer. There is a question if it crosses the line at times but that can apply to everything within the religion. Doesn't through scripture alone imply infallibility of the text though? If so, then yes I'm asking that as well.

            This a genuine question, not an invitation for shit flinging.

            yes

            Eat a dick

            Not OP. If you want to call me stupid go ahead Dirk but the rudeness being sent your way is from a troll.

          • 7 months ago
            Dirk

            Explain to me why it appears to you sola scriptura is idolatrous. It is the position that only scripture is infallible.

            Why from that standard is it not infallible to say both scripture and the church are infallible?
            Also install kuroba

          • 7 months ago
            Dirk

            >is it not infallible
            Is it not idolatrous

  3. 7 months ago
    Dirk

    Steven Anderson holds up the bible and says "behold, God". He doesn't mean that literal codex, he means the words of the bible which he conflates with the biblical/philosophical concept of the pre existent logos. This is idolatry, but it's not sola scriptura. It's idolatry in the same way as Catholics who venerate the host.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >idolatry in the same way as Catholics who venerate the host

      You don't even deserve to be called a heretic if you really believe this, it would be more fitting to say you have apostated.

      • 7 months ago
        Dirk

        Don't throw words around when you don't know their meaning, ok?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          I know exactly what that word means.

          Anyone who denies the real body of Christ in the Eucharist would have been declared anathama by literally any Church Father. It's central to the entire mass.

          • 7 months ago
            Dirk

            >real = local
            >"apostated"

            >I know exactly...
            Uh huh

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cool mental gymnastics.

            Yeah, denying the body of Christ is the same as denying the Church. Ergo, you leave the Church. Ipso facto, apostasy.

            Stop doing that. The Temple is the literal dwelling place of the Lord, there is nothing figurative about it.

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sola scriptura except for all these epistles and traditions that the Early Church deemed "heretical".

    • 7 months ago
      Dirk

      >protestants say they uphold sola scriptura, but did you know they only apply that to canonical scripture?
      Groundbreaking

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >they only apply that to canonical scripture
        Ok that makes sense, but how do we even know which texts qualify as canonical scripture? Are we just supposed to trust the historical witness of a bunch of idolatrous proto-papists from the early church?

        • 7 months ago
          Dirk

          >are we just supposed to trust ... the early church?
          Yes

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Bro they got so much stuff wrong
            how can we trust them to have not gotten the Bible wrong?

          • 7 months ago
            Dirk

            That's a different question and you can make a new thread if you want to get into it

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I mean fine, but this still doesn't make any sense

          • 7 months ago
            Dirk

            I think you're OP and you're just grasping at another talking point

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nope. You can see the unchecked notifications in the upper left.

          • 7 months ago
            Dirk

            Sola Scriptura being idolatry. Again [...] is an acceptable answer. There is a question if it crosses the line at times but that can apply to everything within the religion. Doesn't through scripture alone imply infallibility of the text though? If so, then yes I'm asking that as well.

            This a genuine question, not an invitation for shit flinging.
            [...]
            [...]
            Not OP. If you want to call me stupid go ahead Dirk but the rudeness being sent your way is from a troll.

            Is this a joke? Lol

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I am op. I'm saying

            I mean fine, but this still doesn't make any sense

            isn't me. My last post prior to the second screencap was still

            Sola Scriptura being idolatry. Again [...] is an acceptable answer. There is a question if it crosses the line at times but that can apply to everything within the religion. Doesn't through scripture alone imply infallibility of the text though? If so, then yes I'm asking that as well.

            This a genuine question, not an invitation for shit flinging.
            [...]
            [...]
            Not OP. If you want to call me stupid go ahead Dirk but the rudeness being sent your way is from a troll.

          • 7 months ago
            Dirk

            Fine
            Response?

            Explain to me why it appears to you sola scriptura is idolatrous. It is the position that only scripture is infallible.

            Why from that standard is it not infallible to say both scripture and the church are infallible?
            Also install kuroba

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            do you just not have a good reason for considering specific texts to belong in the Bible or something? why be defensive?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is the biggest protestant cope. If you doubt the Church for being corrupt, you have to doubt pretty much all Church history after Jesus and his disciples. Paul has a stronger hand in Christianity than Jesus.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is the biggest protestant cope. If you doubt the Church for being corrupt, you have to doubt pretty much all Church history after Jesus and his disciples. Paul has a stronger hand in Christianity than Jesus.

            Seriously, what is the protestant reasoning here? Why are they trusting the early church to have correctly identified the canon when they trust them for nearly nothing else? I get they've chosen to trust the israelites to give them their OT canon, but their NT is straight out of the council of Trent.

          • 7 months ago
            Dirk

            Protestantism was a return back to the early church. It was called the reformation.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, but the writings we have from the early church don't really show any similarity to reformation era protestantism, let alone modern day evangelical protestantism. Assuming the early church did look presbyterian or something, you'd still be trusting some disembodied "consensus" of said proto-presbyterians to tell you which writings belong in the Bible. Who told these people that Paul's epistles were meant to be considered scripture? Who told them there was even meant to be any additional scripture put to paper? Even assuming no malice on their part, why should I hold these flawed men up as the end all be all of what goes into the Bible?

            Read Eusebius' Church History.
            All canonical books were widely read by the Churches prior to ratification.
            No noncanonical were majority-accepted.
            The most popular noncanonical book was The Shepherd of Hermas.
            Even during it's initial publication, the Shepherd of Hermas was called out as being a fiction written by the Bishop of Rome's brother.

            Don't people routinely accuse Eusebius of being a massive simp for Constantine? How is he even remotely a trustworthy source?

          • 7 months ago
            Solitaire

            Church History isn't about Constantine.
            He saves it for his Life of Constantine

            That said, everyone has a bias. He was at least a contemporary bishop giving a first/second-hand testimony of books being read in the Churches of his time.

          • 7 months ago
            Dirk

            They do

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            they do what?

          • 7 months ago
            Solitaire

            Read Eusebius' Church History.
            All canonical books were widely read by the Churches prior to ratification.
            No noncanonical were majority-accepted.
            The most popular noncanonical book was The Shepherd of Hermas.
            Even during it's initial publication, the Shepherd of Hermas was called out as being a fiction written by the Bishop of Rome's brother.

          • 7 months ago
            Not him

            Why?

  5. 7 months ago
    Dirk

    >OP posts a thread
    >quickly refuted
    >OP ignores
    >pretends to be someone else
    >changes talking points
    >I point it out
    >OP is suddenly back, "no that's not me"
    >I ask for response
    >crickets
    proof the board needs IDs

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      You didn't really refute it, you just asked for clarification, which is fair.

      I don't totally agree with OP, but if I'm going to clarify his argument I'd do it this way:
      By holding up the Bible as infallible, you are calling it quasi-divine, if not divine.
      The Bible is the work of human authors, but it is treated as divine, infallible.
      Reading the Bible as an act of worship is worshipping the works of men, even if they were inspired by God.
      The human, fallible authors are effectively ignored, and all the books are treated as though the are words that came directly from the mouth of God.

      • 7 months ago
        Dirk

        Divine and infallible are not synonymous but he (you) specifically clarified that the issue isn't infallibility but sola scriptura. All of historic Christianity affirms infallibility.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Can you say that a person is infallible without giving them a divine status implicitly?

          • 7 months ago
            Dirk

            Do you agree that this is an argument against infallibility and not unique to sola scriptura?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            sure, you could apply the argument to most people claiming a religious text is infallible.
            why does that matter?

          • 7 months ago
            Dirk

            Because it's the topic at hand.
            I agree that attributing infallibility to a person is to make them divine. The bible isn't a person, it's an authority judged infallible because it was produced by a divine being.

            So the argument
            >By holding up the bible as infallible, you are calling it quasi divine, if not divine
            Is a non sequitur

            Therefore neither sola scriptura nor any position of biblical infallibility amounts to idolatry, the worship of a false god or a thing as if it is a god. Deeming a text infallible is not worship. Neither is deeming "the magisterium" infallible an act of worship for that matter.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The bible isn't a person, it's an authority judged infallible because it was produced by a divine being.
            It's an object created and compiled by humans, who the Church says were divinely inspired.
            Do you think only people, but not objects, can be the subject of idolatry?

            >By holding up the bible as infallible, you are calling it quasi divine, if not divine
            >Is a non sequitur
            You just said that if you hold a person to be infallible, you are calling them divine. You've agreed there is a connection between infallibility and being divine.
            Even if the Bible is divinely inspired, it is still the works of men. The only thing in the Bible which is said to come directly from the mouth of God is the Law, and the sayings of Jesus. The rest is absolutely mediated by the opinions of men.

            Even with say a vision, like in Revelation, it is John's account of his visions. It is not the direct thoughts of God, it is what God wanted to show John, and John's interpretation of what he saw.

          • 7 months ago
            Dirk

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration?wprov=sfla1

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >wiki link
            I'll take this as a concession Dirk. Yes I understand how evangelicals interpret biblical inspiration. I'm trying to poke holes in that concept when it comes to infallibility.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The only thing in the Bible which is said to come directly from the mouth of God is the Law, and the sayings of Jesus.
            Not true at all.

            "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
            For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
            (2 Peter 1:20-21)

            "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
            For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
            (Galatians 1:11-12)

            "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
            That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
            (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >everyone replying to me is one person
      dirk, you're a namegay
      namegays get attention
      stop being a schizo

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Go to a place with IDs then and see how it works out.

  6. 7 months ago
    Solitaire

    >I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
    -Psalm 138:2
    sorry, you can't ever magnify the Bible TOO much
    not possible.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *