Biblically refute sola scriptura
>only scripture is an infallible authority
>fallible authorities exist (church elders, magistrates, councils, creeds, even parents) but must be normed to scripture
All authority is derivative of God's authority, so while god the father, son and spirit are each infallible themselves, scripture is the sole infallible means of communication with God. At least, since the end of the apostolic age.
There are only two alternatives:
>scripture is not infallible
>something else is also infallible
Protestantism is true unless one of these is proven.
Note that inerrant and infallible are distinct concepts. A creed can be inerrant yet fallible.
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
>Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
John 21:25
More scripture would have been infallible too, sure. Those books do not exist and therefore are not authorities at all.
Jesus still did those things. Jesus's sayings are still infallible whether they are written down or not.
Sure but the only infallible communication of Jesus' words is holy scripture which is god breathed. I was trying to clarify this in the OP.
If I told you that Jesus showed up in my church and said to vote libertarian you should doubt me, right? He didn't show up to you, so the message is mediated through a fallible man (and possibly invented by that man).
Scripture is different because of the doctrine of inspiration.
Draw out your argument more please. I'm asking you to refute the premise I've described, not vaguely refer to scripture and assume we're reading it the same way.
>but the only infallible communication of Jesus' words
Goalpost shift
>I'm asking you to refute the premise I've described
I did, you said another alternative is "something else is also infallible". Scripture says that there are things which Jesus did which are not in scripture. How does that not refute sola scriptura?
>goalposts
I said this in the OP
>I did
You did not, and you're not engaging with my point
He didn't. He lets us err.
I'll make it simple for you,
Are all of Jesus's sayings infallible?
Did Jesus say things that didn't make it into scripture?
If yes to both then something else other than scripture is also infallible.
If you want to be pedantic then yes, there does exist an infallible source of authority other than the Bible in the form of Jesus Christ Himself.
But sola scriptura doesn't claim otherwise.
There are some teachings of Jesus we will not know in this life, but all those which are necessary for our salvation are by divine providence included in the scriptures.
>in the form of Jesus Christ Himself
No, the infallible source is his sayings and doings that were not written down.
>There are some teachings of Jesus we will not know in this life
Agreed
>but all those which are necessary for our salvation are by divine providence included in the scriptures.
That's not the original question
>something else is also infallible
This is your claim. I am saying that it is not true.
There are some infallible teachings of Jesus which we do not know, but there exists no infallible authority from which we can recover them, at least until the last day.
>I am saying that it is not true.
John 21:25
>which we do not know
>there exists no infallible authority from which we can recover them
This is a separate issue. All that matters is if the teachings exist (which they do if John 21:25 is to be trusted).
What is your point?
Draw the connection between John 21:25 and magisterial authority.
>What is your point?
There exists infallible teachings that were not written in scripture
Sola scriptura does not claim otherwise.
OP said it does
Scripture is the only source of Jesus' infallible teachings that is relevant to us as men. There exists no other infallible sources of Jesus' teachings on Earth.
If you want to play moronic language games then congratulations on winning an argument against a position that you made up, but if you're actually trying to refute OP you have yet to succeed.
>is relevant to us as men
Goalpost shift. I can't argue against that because you'll just say whatever I bring up isn't relevant.
>Goalpost shift.
The goal posts haven't moved an inch. It's not my fault you were aiming for the concession stand.
>He didn't. He lets us err.
Matthew 16:18, where Jesus says to Peter, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
How would you interpret, "gates of hell shall not prevail against it." and by whose authority?
I suppose this is where the magic chair comes in to save the day?
What does this prove? Do you think a Galilean peasant who half-heard a sermon from Jesus once and told someone at the end of his life about what he could remember from was infallible on the level of scripture, because it's a report of something Jesus did? moronic argument.
Scripture is the only infallible authority IN THE POST APOSTOLIC AGE
Of course there were infallible teachings before, but Christ and the apostles are no longer teaching here on earth and have left scripture as the infallible compendium of their teaching.
>Do you think a Galilean peasant who half-heard a sermon from Jesus once and told someone at the end of his life about what he could remember from was infallible on the level of scripture, because it's a report of something Jesus did?
You've just undermined scripture, good job. "just as they were handed down to us by the initial eyewitnesses and servants of the word" Luke 1:2. If you believe the author of Matthew reliably remembered the sermon on the mount for example, why couldn't people also reliably remember other teachings Jesus gave?
>but Christ and the apostles are no longer teaching here on earth and have left scripture as the infallible compendium of their teaching.
Yet scripture isn't the only way their teachings remain
>You've just undermined scripture, good job. "just as they were handed down to us by the initial eyewitnesses and servants of the word" Luke 1:2. If you believe the author of Matthew reliably remembered the sermon on the mount for example, why couldn't people also reliably remember other teachings Jesus gave?
God and the Holy Spirit wrote scripture through the evangelists. The Holy Spirit was not inspiring the Galilean peasant with a bad memory I gave an example of. Random reports by anyone of Jesus' ministry were not infallible just by virtue of being about Jesus.
>Yet scripture isn't the only way their teachings remain
No one disputes this. Sola scriptura is that scripture is the only INFALLIBLE source of their teachings.
>God and the Holy Spirit wrote scripture through the evangelists.
Agreed
>The Holy Spirit was not inspiring the Galilean peasant with a bad memory I gave an example of
The point is that you agree oral teachings can be preserved reliably, yet for some reason you only limit this to the oral teachings that were later written down in scripture.
>Random reports by anyone of Jesus' ministry were not infallible just by virtue of being about Jesus.
I never said that. The reports have to be truthful of course.
>Sola scriptura is that scripture is the only INFALLIBLE source of their teachings.
Jesus's words are infallible, whether written down or not.
>The point is that you agree oral teachings can be preserved reliably, yet for some reason you only limit this to the oral teachings that were later written down in scripture.
That oral teachings could be preserved reliably does not make tradition as a whole an *infallible* source of authority.
>Jesus's words are infallible, whether written down or not.
Agreed. Sola scriptura does not dispute this.
I blame low iq American evangelicalism and shitty Catholic pop apologetics for this constant confusion of what sola scriptura is and isn't. Sola scriptura does not dispute that tradition exists as a source of authority. All it says is that tradition as a whole is not infallible on the level of God-breathed scripture itself.
you keep talking about "what sola scriptua says" but you gave no actual source for what sola scriptua is beyond your own interpretation
>as a whole
Never said that, just that oral teachings can and were preserved reliably, so the objection that it's moronic or ridiculous doesn't work.
>Agreed. Sola scriptura does not dispute this.
OP's definition does
>Agreed. Sola scriptura does not dispute this.
>OP's definition does
False
>All authority is derivative of God's authority, so while god the father, son and spirit are each infallible themselves, scripture is the sole infallible means of communication with God. At least, since the end of the apostolic age.
>>All authority is derivative of God's authority, so while god the father, son and spirit are each infallible themselves, scripture is the sole infallible means of communication with God. At least, since the end of the apostolic age.
yet scripture doesn't teach this
Great commission
Do you have some special tranlation where Christ says the All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to this specific canon of scripture that will appear in 1500 years after Protestants remove several books?
Has anyone prior to the reformers taught that the Great Commission meant sola scriptura or were all Christians just wrong on that one?
>only God is infallible
>scripture is the word of God
Therefore, unless you want to argue that the Pope is also the word of God, sola scriptura is true.
>>only God is infallible
is the word of God
neither of which are taught in scripture
wow that was easy, try again
2 Timothy 3:16-17:
>All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Where does scripture say ALL of any other potential authority we have is God-breathed and equips us for EVERY good work?
and yet not a reference to infallible can be found in the quote
>Where does scripture say ALL of any other potential authority we have is God-breathed and equips us for EVERY good work?
next to the part that says we're limited to scripture alone
Scripture is the word of men, written by men, and preserved by men. To deny this means that you attribute divinity to men and decidedly pagan. Enjoy hell, heathen.
>Scripture is the word of men, written by men
Who were in direct communication with God, either by revelation or in the flesh.
If your pope claimed to speak directly to God, that would be all well and good, but he doesn't.
>scripture was written by fallible men, that means we shouldn't trust scripture
>instead lets trust an entire body of fallible men called the church because uhhh the holy spirit or something idk
do christians really
>instead lets trust an entire body of fallible men called the church because uhhh the holy spirit or something idk
nta but
>For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Mtw 18:20
Now find the appropriate counterexample of "when two or three study the books i didn't even write" - where exactly is that written? Nowhere?
you just defeated your own argument, two or three prots studying scripture would be gathered in christ's name
But not because they study scripture, but because they believe in christ. They could study any other christian book, even "falliable" ones, and the statement would still hold value, because they gathered in christ
>Never said that, just that oral teachings can and were preserved reliably, so the objection that it's moronic or ridiculous doesn't work.
No one disputes that oral teachings could be preserved reliably. What's moronic is the idea that makes tradition as a whole literally infallible on the level of God-breathed scripture.
I reliably know what I ate for breakfast today, that does not mean in that matter I am infallible.
>how do you know that a single quote from a single church father equates to sola scriptura?
Because it is what Irenaeus says
>championed the bishops and the authority of the church
Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists have bishops and believe their church is authoritative, they also hold to sola scriptura.
>even in their own confessions they are not bound to anything outside of scriptura
Yes they are, they are bound to the authority and teaching of their church. Just because my pastor is not LITERALLY INFALLIBLE on the level of God-breathed scripture, does not mean I am not bound to his authority in matters of teaching and pastoral care. It is not the case that we are not bound by the authority of our parents just because our parents aren't literally infallible on the level of scripture.
>which would also include their interpretation of what sola scriptura is
Every single denomination has an epistemological issue of private interpretation. Even Catholics have to privately interpret the teachings of their Magisterium. There is no self-interpreting authority anywhere on earth.
Again, I blame low iq American evangelicalism and shitty Catholic pop apologetics for this constant confusion of what sola scriptura is and isn't. All it is, is that we have no God-breathed infallible authority on the level of scripture.
>>how do you know that a single quote from a single church father equates to sola scriptura?
>Because it is what Irenaeus says
but it isn't, you're reinterpreting what Irenaeus is saying as sola scriptura however you cannot show this to be a correct interpretation.
>Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists have bishops and believe their church is authoritative, they also hold to sola scriptura.
and no where does Irenaeus have the same view of the bishopric as Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists
>but it isn't, you're reinterpreting what Irenaeus is saying as sola scriptura however you cannot show this to be a correct interpretation.
I just did.
>and no where does Irenaeus have the same view of the bishopric as Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists
How so? And why would that be relevant to sola scriptura anyway?
>source? because even Westminster disagrees.
Wut? Chapter 31:2 of the Westminster Confession of Faith:
>It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of His church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively [NOTE THE WORD HERE] to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in His Word.
I have no clue why you have this insane belief that sola scriptura means there exists literally no other valid authority on earth.
For the third time, I blame low iq American evangelicalism and shitty Catholic pop apologetics for this constant confusion of what sola scriptura is and isn't.
>and yet not a reference to infallible can be found in the quote
ALL scripture is God-breathed and useful for instructing in righteousness and good works, according to scripture. Do you think the spirit of God is fallible?
>Both sides argue that you must trust them, but present no argument why.
Reason led by faith.
If you need an infallible interpretation of every fact of existence then embrace nihilism and solipsism, because there is no infallible proof reality is real.
>Which scripture was the author talking about there?
Muratorion canon had the NT by Irenaeus' lifetime.
>>but it isn't, you're reinterpreting what Irenaeus is saying as sola scriptura however you cannot show this to be a correct interpretation.
>I just did.
no you're claiming without evidence that Irenaeus taught sola scirptura and that your singular quote you posted is him teaching sola scirptura.
>How so? And why would that be relevant to sola scriptura anyway?
because the Orthodox view of the Church (which bishops are essential to) is void of any sola scriptura doctrine
>ALL scripture is God-breathed and useful for instructing in righteousness and good works, according to scripture. Do you think the spirit of God is fallible?
saying good things about scripture doesn't = sola scriptura and scripture doesn't teach that God breathed = infallible
If you think any God-breathed Word could be fallible, you're just a heretic who thinks God can err.
>If you think any God-breathed Word could be fallible, you're just a heretic who thinks God can err.
no where in scripture does it teach God breathed = infallible and no where in what I just said states God can error,
you've run out of arguments
>scripture doesn't teach that God breathed = infallible
If that is not true, then it means God is either
>Not omniscient (His statements are fallible because He doesn't know any better)
>Not omnibenevolent (His statements are fallible because He is a liar)
Both of which are anti-biblical conclusions.
>If that is not true, then it means God is either
can you prove that using scripture alone?
>Both of which are anti-biblical conclusions.
funny because I never said either of those
>can you prove that using scripture alone?
"Scripture alone" does not mean also forgoing basic logic.
>funny because I never said either of those
But based on your axiom of "God-breathed =/= infallible" you must believe at least one of them, so which is? Unless, of course, I'm missing something, in which case you're more than welcome to point it out.
>"Scripture alone" does not mean also forgoing basic logic.
you abandoned logic a long time ago
>But based on your axiom of "God-breathed =/= infallible" you must believe at least one of them, so which is? Unless, of course, I'm missing something
if you are claiming God breathed = infallible then show it
>I'm not going to refute your completely valid argument because I don't like your tone mister
I accept your concession.
>still can't show God breathed = infallible
>What's moronic is the idea that makes tradition as a whole literally infallible on the level of God-breathed scripture.
You don't get it
>that does not mean in that matter I am infallible.
You're not Jesus
>Yes they are, they are bound to the authority and teaching of their church.
source? because even Westminster disagrees.
>Every single denomination has an epistemological issue of private interpretation. Even Catholics have to privately interpret the teachings of their Magisterium. There is no self-interpreting authority anywhere on earth.
ok but you whining about other denominations doesn't make yours correct
The Bible, itself, contains no list of which books of the Bible belong in it. So in order to know that a particular book belongs in the Bible, there must be an infallible authority outside the Bible indicating which books belong in it and which don’t.
>in order to know that a particular book belongs, there must be an infallible authority outside the bible
Non sequitur
The authority by which we determine the canon is fallible
The Church teaches that the Holy Spirit is infallible, and shares this infallibility with the Church on matters of faith and morals.
Which means a fallible book could have sneaked into the canon. Which means we can't trust the bible.
Non sequitur
Not an argument
yes dirk, at least you're smart enough to realize the response to your non argument is also not an argument
There is no infallible list of infallible tradition anywhere, so we can't trust tradition either.
If you're going to take this route you're just going to end up an epistemological nihilist.
Exactly. Which is part of why Christianity fails:
>This collection of books is infallible.
>Fallible authorities defined which books are part of this collection.
>Somehow I trust them to be infallible in this specific issue, but not others.
>Even though the fallible guy who started this whole Protestantism thing changed the infallible list of books after disagreeing with those other guys' list of infallible books.
Both sides argue that you must trust them, but present no argument why.
Which scripture was the author talking about there? I assume he was talking about the books that he recognized as scripture, since he couldn't see the others to verify, which means not any of the books that were written later.
authorities defined which books are part of this collection.
this is wear your argument and sola scriptura breaks down.
The traditional view is that the Christ established a Church and the Holy Spirit guides that Church from error.
That's not a breakdown, it's perfectly consistent
>The traditional view is that the Christ established a Church and the Holy Spirit guides that Church from error.
Protestants agree with this. We just don't think Rome alone constitutes the entire Church, visible and invisible. And honestly neither do Catholics these days, given they now accept the validity of Orthodox sacraments and Vatican II teaches salvation is possible outside of their church.
>no you're claiming without evidence that Irenaeus taught sola scirptura and that your singular quote you posted is him teaching sola scirptura.
It's the plain reading of the text. The Church has received the plan of salvation from 1. the apostles, and 2. holy scripture, after the apostolic age ended, and the scriptures alone are the (singular) "ground and pillar" of our faith.
>because the Orthodox view of the Church (which bishops are essential to) is void of any sola scriptura doctrine
Okay and? The Orthodox are wrong on sola scriptura. What's your point?
>Protestants agree with this. We just don't think Rome alone constitutes the entire Church, visible and invisible. And honestly neither do Catholics these days, given they now accept the validity of Orthodox sacraments and Vatican II teaches salvation is possible outside of their church.
so again, your knee jerk reaction of catholics = wrong doesn't make protestantism correct.
I wasn't proving anything about Protestantism. I was correcting a dumb Catholic reply that conflated definitions of the Church while stating something Protestants agree with as an argument for why the Catholic position is correct.
>can you show its the plain reading of the text?
I don't need to by definition of the reading being plain.
>so far you claimed Irenaeus taught sola scirptura, your singular quote you posted is him teaching sola scirptura and that your interpretation is self evidence. none of which you can demonstrate.
I could laboriously go through and give you the definition of every single word if you wanted, but the quote is plain. Let me post it again
>We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
I encourage any third party to read this quote and ask themselves whether they think Irenaeus means that scripture is the sole highest rule of faith, in accordance with sola scriptura.
>Saint Paul disagrees, the Church of the living God, the pillar and the foundation of the truth
Agree. That Irenaeus clearly parallels this passage in 1 Timothy is interesting, and indicates that Irenaeus has the highest possible view of scripture as Paul did the Church, and viewed the two's authority as one (the Church's authority IS with scripture).
>not an argument
Neither was yours. "The Orthodox view is X" is not an argument for anything.
>no where in scripture does it teach God breathed = infallible
"God-breathed" in 2 Timothy 3:16 literally means "theopneustos" i.e. "God" (theos) and "with the spirit/breath of" (pneuma, or the Holy Spirit). If you're saying the Holy Spirit is fallible then you're blaspheming it.
>no where in what I just said states God can error
See above.
>I wasn't proving anything about Protestantism. I was correcting a dumb Catholic reply that conflated definitions of the Church while stating something Protestants agree with as an argument for why the Catholic position is correct.
you're arguing against a point no one is making
>I don't need to by definition of the reading being plain.
you just keep asserting that it is.
>I could laboriously go through and give you the definition of every single word if you wanted, but the quote is plain. Let me post it again
you're just again asserting that the your interpretation of the quote is the plain text of reading.
>Neither was yours. "The Orthodox view is X" is not an argument for anything.
it is you're just not smart enough
>you just keep asserting that it is.
Because that's what plain meaning means. If you want to read the quote
>We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
And disagree that this is Irenaeus supporting sola scriptura without giving any argument at all, go ahead. But at this point you're just trolling.
>how does that make "the Holy Spirit" infallible?
Ok blasphemer and heretic
"Canon" means list. If the argument against sola scriptura is that there is no infallible list of what makes up scripture, then there is no infallible list of what makes up tradition either.
>Because that's what plain meaning means. If you want to read the quote
you keep asserting that it is but you can't prove your claim
>"Canon" means list. If the argument against sola scriptura is that there is no infallible list of what makes up scripture, then there is no infallible list of what makes up tradition either.
your response is a 'n-no u'?
>NO YOU CAN'T POINT OUT THAT MY OWN ARGUMENT ALSO REFUTES MY POSITION THAT'S CHEATING
>i posted le funny meme therefore i win
Back to Twitter with ye.
Yes. We will never have self-validating infallible epistemic certainty at any level so the lack of it is not an argument against sola scriptura, unless one wants to become a total nihilist and solipsist.
>We will never have self-validating infallible epistemic certainty at any level
how do you know this
Are you moronic?
are you unable to demonstrate how you know your claim is true?
The frick are you on about? The burden of proof is on the person who thinks a "self-validating infallible source of epistemic certainty" exists to prove it exists. Do you know how basic logic works?
you made a universal claim and failed to demonstrate it to be true
>"God-breathed" in 2 Timothy 3:16 literally means "theopneustos" i.e. "God" (theos) and "with the spirit/breath of" (pneuma, or the Holy Spirit). If you're saying the Holy Spirit is fallible then you're blaspheming it.
how does that make 'God breathed' infallible?
Question: Are you having a stroke right now?
It is impossible to argue against nonsense.
>Catholics literally arguing in this thread that scripture being God-breathed doesn't make it infallible
The jig was up a long time ago, but really Catholics? My goodness...
>'everyone who isn't protestant is catholic' knee jerk
>still can't show God breathed = infallible
this is why no one takes protestants seriously
>blaspheming the holy spirit to own the prots
>The Holy Spirit guides that church from error
>"that church" is not just the Catholic church, but the entire church, even according to Catholics.
>But all those churches disagree with each other on basic stuff like which books are infallible or not.
>Which means there is error in there somewhere, despite the Holy Spirit's work.
>It's the plain reading of the text
can you show its the plain reading of the text?
so far you claimed Irenaeus taught sola scirptura, your singular quote you posted is him teaching sola scirptura and that your interpretation is self evidence. none of which you can demonstrate.
>the scriptures alone are the (singular) "ground and pillar" of our faith.
Saint Paul disagrees, the Church of the living God, the pillar and the foundation of the truth
>Okay and? The Orthodox are wrong on sola scriptura. What's your point?
not an argument
We know which books are in the Bible by their authorship.
Besides, your solution just moves the problem up a level. There are many authorities on this Earth, how do we know which one is infallible?
>but muh keys to heaven
Ok, so that moves the problem back down, but now the argument is circular.
>How do we know the Pope is infallible? Because the Bible says so.
>How do we know the Bible is infallible? Because the Pope says so.
We both don't know who wrote them, and beyond that we have plenty of other books also claiming to have been written by various important figures.
The Gospels of Thomas and Mary for example, both claim to be authentic works from the mouths of important figures. And they directly contradict the Mark/Luke/John trio in many ways. And this extends to stories like the Shepherd of Hermas that was once as popular as any gospel.
You can say they're obviously nonsense, but that is reliant on 1700 years of a potentially fallible canon being chosen over them.
>potentially fallible
You're conflating fallible with errant
There is no real difference.
Errant scripture chosen by fallible persons.
Unless you read all authentic early Christian text from the 1st-3rd centuries and consider it all valid, you're relying on some fallible individual or group to have made a call on what was 'true gospel' and 'falsehood'.
And there is no extant guide within the Bible itself saying what is valid and isn't valid, and even if there was, it could have come from some fake gospel and have been written to lie to or deceive the reader.
If you can't see the difference you're not equipped to reject sola scriptura
You haven't addressed the argument itself.
What 'scriptura' is 'sola'?
How does God ensure that mankind interprets the Bible correctly if it is indeed the sole infallible means of commination with God?
All I'm saying is that you'd think one of the apostles would've said something about the assumption of Mary, instead of it being teased out by theologians centuries later
He's Dirk
He's Dirk
the jerk with a smirk sitting in the kirk
>Biblically refute sola scriptura
No problem. From Matthew 23:
>Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
>Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
>All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Jesus is clearly recognizing the Pharisees (= Rabbis) as a valid religious authority.
What's your next move, Dirk the serial debate loser?
>Biblically refute sola scriptura
>only scripture is an infallible authority
>fallible authorities exist (church elders, magistrates, councils, creeds, even parents) but must be normed to scripture
if sola scriptura is true why do protestants have a 100% failure rate when debating jay dyer
I used the Bible to refute Sola Scriptura, yes.
Your observation doesn't conflict with sola scriptura, as I clarified from the start
Sola scriptura is easily disproven by the fact that it does not appear in scripture
> The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times
-Psalms 12:6
>Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
-Matthew 7:6
and not a single mention of scripture being the only authority
>sola scriptura is true!
>it took 1500+ years for anyone to realize and all Christians before that were wrong
quite the moronic claim
Irenaeus taught sola scriptura in the middle of the 2nd century AD
>We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
I'm repeating the classical Protestant understanding of sola scriptura, held to by most Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans etc..
>Irenaeus taught sola scriptura in the middle of the 2nd century AD
so how do you know that a single quote from a single church father equates to sola scriptura? keep in mind this is also the guy that championed the bishops and the authority of the church
>I'm repeating the classical Protestant understanding of sola scriptura, held to by most Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans etc..
so? does the classical Protestant understanding of sola scriptura have a monopoly on what sola scriptura is defined as? because even in their own confessions they are not bound to anything outside of scriptura which would also include their interpretation of what sola scriptura is giving way to other interpretation such as the anabaptists of rejecting everything outside the bible
else is also infallible
The Pope.
source: infallible authority of the Pope.
>source: infallible authority of the Pope.
>*Biblically* refute sola scriptura
>Dude, just like trust me!
>Bro, we can interpret the Bible upon our own!
>Yeah, bro, I get it, we are like fallen, sin dilutes our perception, but like, that doesn't include the Bible bro!
>Uh, who cares where the Bible came from and like, whatever dude.
>Yeah, I think it was ok for the Reformist to remove 7 books of the OT and Omit 16 verses from the NT.
Lmao, when you stop and think about these things for a minute, you'll concluded that Protestantism is the same invisible hand to the Bronze Age religions that were mutation of God. Just like Protestants, they Bronze Age folks divided God into many divide games for their own sake, because they chose to do such things, since they thought themselves to be correct. Boys, just attend a Catechism/inquiries course at your local Orthodox Church, if you don't have anything local, try and contact the closes Church and they'll find a way to work something out with you. WE'RE ALL GOING TO MAKE IT IN SALVATION BROS!
>scripture is not infallible
Of course it isn't lol. Why would you think it is? Right from the start Genesis 1 is directly contradicted by Genesis 2 that immediately follows it.
How can a book that isn't even internally consistent be infallible? It is a work of man, and man is never infallible unless you're a papist.
>Biblically refute sola scriptura
nowhere in the Bible does it say Sola Scriptura is a thing
Amos 3:3
Matthew 15. Jesus established a principle that there are traditions that are infallibly passed down alongside of scripture. He demonstrates the principle that these human traditions that were passed down through a teaching authority which would have been the rabbis, that has to be judged by the word of God.
The text is exactly as it should be = infallible.
We will never fully understand the meaning behind the text and there are other things to learn from other sources.
To ensure the spirit of the word is maintained in practice we should rest our arguments about what to do on the text we agree is inspired by it.
There's not been a real attempt yet itt. Any takers? Tell me whether the bible is fallible or what else is infallible and prove it from scripture
>There's not been a real attempt yet itt
There never will be.
are you trying to shift from sola scriptura to whether the bible is fallible?
Why are you replying if you haven't bothered to read the OP?
>There are only two alternatives:
>scripture is not infallible
>something else is also infallible
>Why are you replying if you haven't bothered to read the OP?
not an argument
>Tell me whether the bible is fallible or what else is infallible and prove it from scripture
why? You as a protestant limit yourself to scripture alone. No one else has that issue and has no problem citing Holy Synods, Church Fathers and Saint
>why? You as a protestant limit yourself to scripture alone.
>fallible authorities exist (church elders, magistrates, councils, creeds, even parents) but must be normed to scripture
authorities exist (church elders, magistrates, councils, creeds, even parents) but must be normed to scripture
prove this using scripture alone
If you only trust the scripture, you must trust whoever decided that those specific books compose the scripture. If you don't trust them as infallible, you admit there could be error in the scripture. Which means that the bible is fallible.
Form this into an argument please. Are you saying you must have an infallible authority to decide the canon in order for the text itself to be infallible, therefore there exists some infallible authority other than scripture? Is that the argument?
Basically yes. With a fallible authority deciding the canon, you could have a bunch of fake books in there and you would never know. Or true books that are not in the canon. Seeing as how all the different denominations can't agree with each other on which books are canon or not, this means that both the authorities and the book must be fallible.
>We know which books are in the Bible by their authorship.
Good. This means all Christian denominations agree, right? Oh wait they don't. So which authority do I trust to decide which canon to follow?
Do you extend this reasoning to the transmission of the text? Does every scribe need infallibility, every text critic?
The long ending of mark is not original, but was thought to be for countless Christians over centuries. Was the bible not infallible whenever it included that bit?
>Do you extend this reasoning to the transmission of the text? Does every scribe need infallibility, every text critic?
why would they need to
They're in the exact same position as a canonical authority is, deciding what is and isn't inspired/original. You've not thought this one through.
Here's a different way to put it. Was the gospel of mark infallible when he wrote it, or did it become infallible when the proper authority incorporated it into the canon? (Hint: your church teaches the former)
Christians just have a different view of the Bible than Muslims do with the Quran, protestants tend to turn the Bible into an idol the way muslims treat the Quran
>*proceeds to worship a rock*
cope
Answer my question
why
Because it's relevant to the issue we're discussing
>With a fallible authority deciding the canon
See
There is no infallible list of infallible tradition anywhere. So by the same token we should reject the possibility of infallible tradition.
why does their need to be a list
Because there were at least dozens of other 'Christian' texts all claiming to be the authentic gospels during the early days of Christianity. Many of which are extremely contradictory too the established canon.
If you don't know which books are trustworthy, and which should be there and which shouldn't, and understand that many contradict one another, then you can't just trust the scripture itself.
>Was the bible not infallible whenever it included that bit?
>we should reject the possibility of infallible tradition.
It's the only logical conclusion, and seems like even you 2 agree. The bible is a fallible book, made by fallible man. If there is actual God given wisdom in there we can only hope but never know for certain.
See
>enter thread
>Ignore topic
>ask opponent to prove something else we already agree upon
>I now win the argument
Why are ecatholics like this
not an argument
How is it that this is the history/humanities board and yet the people who come here can't even be bothered to read up just a little bit on the history of the canon and realize that the "apocrypha" was never part of the canon in the first place? The only difference between a "Protestant" bible and a Catholic bible before all of the ridiculous factionalizing was that the books which were not deemed canon, yet still valuable for teaching, were in one gathered into a single section, and in another interspersed throughout the bible as a whole? Is it that not even one of you have an old bible lying around somewhere in your house? One with all the names of your family members written inside of it in the genealogy section? Well, I guess it would make sense if you didn't, because so many of you act like you came from broken households. Protestants, Catholics, and especially you facebook Orthodox, consider actually reading the church fathers before arguing about this stuff on the internet; at least engage with and appreciate the tradition you call sacred.
>But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.
Last call
See 'bible alone' section. Also 2 Timothy 1:13, Titus 1:9, and 2 Thessalonians 2:15:
>So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether BY WORD OF MOUTH or by letter.
Even the bible itself contradicts sola scriptura.
Also 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6.
Also see the letters of St Ignatius of Antioch where he talks about constantly being in obedience to the bishops and deacons etc.
I'll hear your argument if you have one
It's an inherently self contradictory idea. I don't have time to waste arguing with you. May God have mercy on you and open yours eyes.
>you're wrong
>uhh... I don't have time to tell you why
Brilliant
>something else is also infallible
Yes the apostolic traditional ie. the operation of the Holy Ghost in and on the world, but prots wouldn't know about that because they aren't in Christ.
Kyrie eleison.
Why can't Protestants agree on very basic scriptural stuff like Baptism and the Lord's Supper?
They largely do but you can make a thread devoted to that topic if you need more
>They largely do
Huh? Does the Reformed tradition no longer teach that only the elect are regenerated during their baptism?
Both sola scriptura and argument from church authority fail. Either you put your trust on word of mouth, Biblical writers and editors, and early church leaders who claimed the texts were infallible (you're trusting fallible humans), or the religious organization itself claiming to be infallible (you're trusting fallible humans).
Additionally, church authority fails because there's a very long historical precedent for them being full corrupt idiots. For sola scriptura adherents even the canon gospels and later writings disagree on certain events or rules, showing their fallibility and that they can't all be god-inspired either - unless said god purposefully lets errors exist in its holy word, which conflicts with the common theist claim that god isn't an author of confusion.
Ultimately it doesn't make a difference for theists: one either ends up claiming that the church is infallible, or that ancient israelites were infallible. People who don't view humans as infallible can easily reject both sides.
I choose the former
Whichever books god inspired in their autographic form.
This is not an argument, it's an ancillary issue.
Read the OP again and tell me which option you choose, then biblically make your case
It isn't ancillary at all.
It is addressing the actual real world implementation of your concept. In that it can't be implemented.
Beyond that, Biblically, the lack of any kind of established canon within any part of the Bible tells us that those writing it were extremely open to readers and teachers making their own interpretations and policies on what was accurate or not. Indicating clearly that sola scriptura was never considered a practical code.
You're dealing with a strawman that says scripture is the only authority.
Read the op, tell me which option you choose.
Same as above
Scripture is not infallible.
Because you can't know if the scripture you're reading is accurate or not.
That doesn't seem to follow, can you explain further?
Do you think fallibility is somehow tied to my access and interpretation of it? In the traditional view, scripture is infallible by virtue of its inspiration, whether anyone reads it or not.
Furthermore your position contradicts catholic teaching, if that's where you're coming from.
>Do you think fallibility is somehow tied to my access and interpretation of it?
Yes.
You only can read the scripture you have access to.
Sola scriptura is a practical position. It is grounded in solving a real world problem of untrustworthy clergy.
But, if your scripture itself is also untrustworthy because it was collated by fallible persons, then it cannot be relied upon to find truth.
Biblically you can point to the acceptance of Temple Priests and Rabbis that existed purely to deal with this concept.
Of any given piece of Biblical text or claimed religious experience being the subject of assessment and debate by a wide range of scholars who were given the freedom to disagree with or dispute any given topic.
Do you only trust that which you identify as infallible? You don't trust your mom, your priest, the catechism?
I'm not that pessimistic, there's nothing disconcerting about the fact that I have to trust fallible authorities on the issue of the canon or text criticism. Furthermore it's not a valid argument to say "I presuppose that an infallible authority on the canon is necessary, therefore such an authority exists."
I wouldn't trust any of them to tell me the word of God, no. I love my mother, but I wouldn't consider her a prophet, lol.
The issue with your position is that there isn't any counterbalance to the fallible authorities. The scripture itself, that you're relying on as a primary opinion set against them, was decided upon by fallible authorities in the first place. Who is to say that the best and most divinely inspired gospels weren't excluded by them?
Was scripture infallible at the time of writing?
Is the canon the list of books which are divinely inspired?
>Was scripture infallible at the time of writing?
Yes but no one knew it was until confirmed by the Church
Is the canon the list of books that are divinely inspired?
I'm not asking if the canon list itself is divinely inspired, down to how they're ordered and what they're called. I'm asking if the canon of scripture is exclusively composed of inspired texts, at least in theory.
>Is the canon the list of books that are divinely inspired?
yes
>I'm asking if the canon of scripture is exclusively composed of inspired texts
I'd have to be divinely inspired to say that.
Otherwise we could only say that they could be.
And that other divinely inspired books could have been rejected from the canon due to fallibility.
Your definition of infallible is the capacity to make declarative statements?
Do you have to be divinely inspired to conclude that the pope is infallible?
You would have to be.
Him being fallible is the base state. He is a human, to err is to be human.
To claim him infallible would require invoking divine inspiration.
Depends on the scripture.
Any Christian would agree that there are 'some' fake gospels out there. The question is of course, which ones.
No, I wouldn't call the canon divinely inspired. We know that the canon was decided in a political meaning by people who themselves were far from infallible.
Scripture never defines which books are scripture and Christians disagree about it. Therefore you must defer to some other authority to determine the canon, whether it's a church or just a nebulous tradition, and they're inevitably going to make arguments like "clearly X isn't divinely inspires because it conflicts with our beliefs which we know are true" and at that point you're putting that authority above scripture.
>scripture is the sole infallible means of communication with God. At least, since the end of the apostolic age
This is an extra-biblical tradition. Sola Scriptura could not have been true during the apostolic age, so at what point did it become true? How do you know? By what authority can you know?
the protestant reformers and reading sola scriptura into church fathers
>At what point
You just quoted me answering that question
>How do you know
The biblical doctrine of inspiration
>by what authority
God's
Which option do you pick?
>The biblical doctrine of inspiration
yet you cannot get this from scripture alone
>by what authority
>God's
not found in scripture
2/10
>yet you cannot get this from scripture alone
Correct. Thanks for letting us know you didn't read the OP before posting.
I agree, and this is true prior to (and therefore independent of) an allegedly infallible interpreter of the canon. You cannot argue that "tradition", "the church", "the pope" or whatever must be infallible in order for scripture to be infallible.
>Correct. Thanks for letting us know you didn't read the OP before posting.
not an argument
?
>You cannot argue that "tradition", "the church", "the pope" or whatever must be infallible in order for scripture to be infallible.
how do you come to the conclusion that a fallible group of people can create an infallible canon?
They don't, god did when he inspired certain books. The Church's job is to apprehend which books are in and which are out, which doesn't require infallibility but does open the possibility of error, hence the competing christian canons now and historically.
>god did when he inspired certain books
is this or the books God inspired found in scripture?
>The Church's job is to apprehend which books are in and which are out, which doesn't require infallibility but does open the possibility of error
but Dirk, this is also not found in scripture.
Other authorities exist besides the bible according to sola scriptura
>Biblically refute sola scriptura
>only scripture is an infallible authority
>fallible authorities exist (church elders, magistrates, councils, creeds, even parents) but must be normed to scripture
>Other authorities exist besides the bible according to sola scriptura
Not ones that are charged with the authority to decide the canon
According to sola scriptura, other authorities charged with deciding the canon are infallible? That's obviously wrong. What did you mean to say?
>According to sola scriptura, other authorities charged with deciding the canon are infallible? That's obviously wrong.
but thats what happen, scripture doesn't give us the canon of scripture
Ok?
which brings us back to how does one derive the canon of scripture from sola scriptura if
scripture doesn't give a canon
scripture doesn't give any group the authority to define the canon
>You're dealing with a strawman that says scripture is the only authority.
you're purposely misrepresenting what I said because you're stuck, this continuously happens in every thread you're in
no where did I say you are saying scripture is the only authority
what was said was:
scripture doesn't give a canon
scripture doesn't give any group the authority to define the canon
so how do you get the canon Dirk
By fallible authority, specifically what the early church received as inspired
But scripture doesn't tell us they have the authority to do so.
so how do you know the fallible authority, specifically what the early church received as inspired can give us the canon of scripture
Where are you getting the idea that scripture has to tell us about every authority according to sola scriptura? Did someone say this to you?
If not then you are using extra biblical sources to define who has the authority to give us the canon of scripture, which further begs the question how do you know these extra biblical sources have the authority to give us the canon of scripture
Ok? You're just asking your question again without answering mine.
Sola scriptura doesn't claim that scripture tells us about every authority. The biblical authors had no concept of the US Senate, the Roman curia or Strong's concordance.
>Sola scriptura doesn't claim that scripture tells us about every authority
you really want to argue against a point I'm not making here.
so again I never said scripture tells us about every authority.
can you reply to what was actually said for once?
what was said was:
scripture doesn't give a canon
scripture doesn't give any group the authority to define the canon
to which you admit to. which then begs the question:
if scripture doesn't give a canon or tells us of a group that has the authority to give us a canon, then how do you know the group that defined the canon of scripture has the authority to do so.
If you're not tying it back to the definition of sola scriptura then what's your point? The question isn't germane
I don't think a given person or institution defined the canon. The canon is what was inspired of god, it existed prior to the church and expanded until the end of the apostolic age and the last book was written. Our job is to apprehend which is and isn't inspired out of the short list of candidates
Reply to this post with a claim that either the scripture is fallible or something else is infallible with proof
>If you're not tying it back to the definition of sola scriptura then what's your point? The question isn't germane
I'm literally granting sola scriptura and discussing the implications of it
>I don't think a given person or institution defined the canon
so do you have a justification for departing from the history of canonization then? We know about the various councils throughout history this isn't the 1500s where history was muddled
>The canon is what was inspired of god, it existed prior to the church and expanded until the end of the apostolic age and the last book was written
the Church was established during Christ's life the texts were written after his death, you are factually incorrect
>Our job is to apprehend which is and isn't inspired out of the short list of candidates
this is exactly what is in question which you don't seem to have an answer to if scripture doesn't give a canon or tells us of a group that has the authority to give us a canon, then how do you know the group that defined the canon of scripture has the authority to do so.
Reply to this post with an explanation on how you know the group that defined the canon of scripture has the authority to do so.
I don't depart from the history of the development from the canon, I embrace it. The protestant canon is nearest a consensus of the earliest sources. Should a shocking new development occur I'll follow that evidence where it leads too.
>You are factually incorrect
The entire Hebrew bible predates the incarnation
>reply with
No. I opened the thread on a particular topic and you chose to engage.
Stop beating around the bush with all these pointed questions and make an argument
>I don't depart from the history of the development from the canon, I embrace it. The protestant canon is nearest a consensus of the earliest sources. Should a shocking new development occur I'll follow that evidence where it leads too.
you do when you say
>I don't think a given person or institution defined the canon.
>The entire Hebrew bible predates the incarnation
we're talking about the scripture that discusses the Church, its called the New Testament which was written after Christ's death. try to keep up.
>No. I opened the thread on a particular topic and you chose to engage.
so you refuse to or unable to show how you know the group that defined the canon of scripture has the authority to do so.
definitively archiving this
I don't share your unstated presupposition and I'm asking you to be forthright so we can actually discuss the issue
I'm trying to be forthright in discussing the implications of sola scriptura as you understand it but you're avoiding stating how you know specific things precisely to make it unable to argue against your position
I'm telling you that your question doesn't comply with my view and isn't relevant to the doctrine. I'm telling you why and how by talking about what the canon is, and that it's prior to our apprehension of it.
I don't believe a single institution sat down one day and created the canon, or was tasked with apprehending the true canon once for all. I think several legitimate ecclesiastical authorities have ruled on the issue in contradictory ways, yet being legitimate authorities. The Ethiopian church is a valid church with an incorrect canon. The Roman church is a valid church with an incorrect canon. The church in Ephesus was a valid church with an incomplete canon.
Sola scriptura doesn't require a certain view on the development of the canon, and the development of the canon doesn't require an infallible authority to compile it.
You might find sola scriptura problematic because you don't like this view of the canon and would prefer an infallible authority to tell you what it is, but that does nothing to prove your preferred authority is indeed infallible.
>I'm telling you that your question doesn't comply with my view and isn't relevant to the doctrine
then it should be quite easy to get around but instead you avoid the subject all together,
>I don't believe a single institution sat down one day and created the canon
then you are quite literally departing from the historical understanding about the canon, the different canons in use in the first and second century, the council of cathage and nicea
>I think several legitimate ecclesiastical authorities have ruled on the issue in contradictory ways, yet being legitimate authorities
how do you know they're legitimate authorities? how do you differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate authorities?
>The Ethiopian Roman and Ephesus church is a valid church
by what standard are you using to say the Ethiopian church is a valid church
>Sola scriptura doesn't require a certain view on the development of the canon, and the development of the canon doesn't require an infallible authority to compile it.
yes you keep saying this however it just begs the question how do you know the group that defined the canon of scripture has the authority to do so.
you consistently make assertions while avoiding the implications of those assertions.
I'm answering your questions again and you're just asking another question again. This is what I meant about you not being forthright. There's no immediate relevance of these questions to sola scriptura.
Is scripture fallible, or is something else infallible? How do you know?
>I'm answering your questions again and you're just asking another question again
you're replying to it with a deflection
>Is scripture fallible, or is something else infallible? How do you know?
scripture is infallible because that is what the Orthodox Church teaches
Hold on, scripture is infallible BECAUSE your church teaches so? Or you know that it's infallible because they told you?
both and not either or
Was the book of Exodus infallible in the year 1 AD?
don't know
Ok. It was because it was inspired at the time of writing. Your position is untenable because it requires the church to be prior to scripture. Yours is not the historic view, or even the view of either the east or west today.
it requires the church to be prior to the canon of scripture
which is was
Those are the same reasons given by Mormons for their holy book.
Dirk why don't you debate Jay Dyer
That would probably require doxing myself
Pastor P didn't dox himself
My favourite debate, regarding this topic, is still the one between James White and Patrick Madrid.
>Biblically refute sola scriptura
The bible cites other works outside itself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible
So?
Reading this thread, I’ve leaned that papists have the same arguments as israelites and skeptic atheists. Grim
you're free to make an argument
>Church elders (being man and not God) are fallible
>Church elders are largely the ones who decide what is an isn't canon, they did this through mediation amongst themselves (See the start of the Catholic Church[es], expulsions/denouncements of Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians, etc, the Roman Catholic/Orthodox Catholic schism and so on)
>Scripture is therefore fallible because man decided what counts as scripture and what doesn't
>scripture is therefore fallible
Doesn't follow because the Church's job is to apprehend what god has inspired, which is fallible regardless
Infallible regardless
If god breathed it it's his infallible word, even if he wrote it down and hid it from everybody
Okay, and what is the Church comprised of?
Savoy Declaration of Faith 26.1
The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.[a]
a: Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 1:22-23, Ephesians 5:23, Ephesians 5:27, Ephesians 5:32, Colossians 1:18
Your "sola scripture" depends on the Catholics choosing the books that would be in your Holey Bible! Then God told the Protestants to remove all books that they didn't like! Your "infallible" Bible is a lie; therefore, Christianity is based on a lie created by lying liars who lie!!
Your church teaches that scripture is infallible at the time of writing
>being so arogant that you think you know what church a random person on the internet is
sorry but I know you only read arguments against the catholic church but we're not in 1568 anymore
Found the Orthodox. Always sticking out like a sore thumb, or rather always wanting to be recognized as just so different from the other Christians. Always these wild-eyed and long-haired, long-bearded guys; I guess a lot of them are former metal-heads. They must've really liked the aesthetic of the Great Schema. I bet they'd love “Death to the World”, the hip Orthodox Christian zine for Metal-Loving Teens. And don't forget Jay Dyer, always love Mr. Jay "How is there one ontological will in God, while the Persons appear to do separate actions?" Dyer. Can never forget Jay "A proto-trinitarian doctrine was already taught in Hellenism in Proclus, Plotinus, and others, including a kind of version in Philo. It is hard to accept that the Eastern Fathers were not Hellenistic as the Eastern apologists tell us, when they can’t even seem to figure out if God gave sex and human bodies as a result of the fall" Dyer. But they've moved on from metal, I suppose. Now they listen to 1 hour long Orthodox chad — I mean chant — compilations on Youtube, and participate in the beautiful, sacred tradition of sharing out-of-context quotes from old, dead, but similarly long-bearded men from hundreds of years ago in order to vicariously live out their fantasy of being a learned, intelligent, religious man, though they can't bear to argue themselves in any way except to spout platitudes, spam wojaks, and remind everyone how the Catholic church is so wrapped up in scandal, and the Protestants are so gay, but the Orthodox Church is so normal. Oh, at least the Orthodox are normal. See Brother Nathanael? See Father Spyridon? Oh, thank God the Orthodox are normal, and I can buy Father Josiah Trenham's wonderfully marketed PatristicNectar merch. But isn't it so horrible what Father Seraphim Rose about the future of Russia?
Top tier effort + banter post
can someone please explain to me how we know what books of the bible are real and which aren't?
just open the table of contents
thanks moron.
>3 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? 2 You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. 3 You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
>4 Such confidence we have through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
>2 Corinthians 3
>not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
If you deny the holy spirit's work in establishing the early churches, you deny the legitimacy of the church itself. You'll eventually have to deny all non-apostolic texts, then non-apostolic succession, then the new testament as a whole. Congratulations, you're a pharisee who judges by the word.
>39You pore over the Scriptures because you presume that by them you possess eternal life. These are the very words that testify about Me, 40yet you refuse to come to Me to have life.
>John 5:39
Notice the contrast between "study the books" and "coming to christ" (going to church).
>Matthew 19:12
>For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.