Challenges: sola scriptura questions.

[stray bullet]

It is obvious that you can not answer simple questions, nor confess your inability to. Despite the discussions on sola scriptura, you do not address the subject, but make tangents that have nothing to do with it. You ramble on about how wrong the Catholic and Orthodox are, you attack our doctrine and Traditions, but you refuse to face the very heresy you believe in.

So, I will make this simple for you, simple questions with very simple rules. If what you believe is true and not a heresy, then you should be able to answer them. If you resort to tangents and attacks on our Churches, then you are confessing you believe in an unbiblical heresy because you can't answer.

1)-Where in the bible does it say you should believe in only the authority of the bible?
-Do not tell me that the bible should be used, nor that it is a good thing, we ALL agree that it is an inerrant source of information. The question is the bible alone, "sola scriptura' "by scripture alone".
-Do not bring up Tradition, this has nothing to do with Tradition.
-Do not bring up Doctrine, this has nothing to do with Doctrine.
-Do not bring up the Catholic or Orthodox Church, do not even mention them, because such attacks have nothing to do with the question.

2)-If the bible is the final authority on all matters and infallible, then who was the infallible man who decided whichs book to include in the bible?

3)-Going by sola scriptura, how do you know what books to believe in and which not to. How do you know the Apocalype of John (Revelation) is true, but the Apocalypse of Peter is not? Both documents were read in the early Church.

->DO NOT POST OUTSIDE LINKS BECAUSE THESE ARE VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS AND SUCH ANSWERS AVOID THE QUESTION

You should be able to post sound, biblically based answers on your own to what is obbviously an important belief to you.
Outside links, attacking Doctrine, Tradition or other Churches are obvious attempts at avoiding the answer and let us know immediately you have heretical beliefs.

Answer away!

 

[JM]

It is obvious that you can not answer simple questions, nor confess your inability to. Despite the discussions on sola scriptura, you do not address the subject, but make tangents that have nothing to do with it. You ramble on about how wrong the Catholic and Orthodox are, you attack our doctrine and Traditions, but you refuse to face the very heresy you believe in.

I’m not sure who you’re asking, but I thought I take a shot.

From what you’re posted so far, I don’t believe your presuppositions will allow for you to examine the evidence anyone will post. In fact, your presupposition CAN NOT accept the evidence. You don’t believe the Bible is the only rule of faith for the believer, when evidence from Scripture is presented you can’t accept it because you don’t accept it as the only rule.

I ask you to set aside your presuppositions for a moment, and examine the evidence aside from the current belief you have now of either Scripture AND Tradition (Catholic) or Scripture AS PART of Tradition.

So, I will make this simple for you, simple questions with very simple rules. If what you believe is true and not a heresy, then you should be able to answer them. If you resort to tangents and attacks on our Churches, then you are confessing you believe in an unbiblical heresy because you can't answer.

Because your ‘rules’ are based on the presupposition that Scripture is not a valid source of doctrine ALONE, I have to discard your rules to give an answer. My presupposition will be, the Bible is "is an inerrant source of information"(quoting you) and this allows for us to start where we agree.

Where in the bible does it say you should believe in only the authority of the bible?

We can logically conclude that since we both agree, the Scripture contain no errors whatsoever it is a valid source of religious information. Since we don’t have a consensus as to what other forms for information we may use to establish doctrine, we seek no other. Jesus Christ our Lord tells us that ‘other’ forms are man made. Only Scripture is spoken of as ‘God breathed’, this is why it is essential to use Scripture and Scripture alone: it is errant, it is God breathed and other sources of religious information cannot make the same claims...Scripture also makes no such claim of 'other' sources of religious information...they are not God breathed.

If the bible is the final authority on all matters and infallible, then who was the infallible man who decided whichs book to include in the bible?

I thought we just agreed, Scripture was infallible which means without error? Are you now saying it isn't? I think you mean to ask, 'how did we get the canon of Holy Scriptures?' If that is the case, say so and I'll do my best to answer.

Going by sola scriptura, how do you know what books to believe in and which not to. How do you know the Apocalype of John (Revelation) is true, but the Apocalypse of Peter is not? Both documents were read in the early Church.

Who's canon do you use? The Orthodoxy of the Nestorian Church, which recognizes only 22 books, excluding 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation? Maybe the Orthodoxy of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church gives the same 27 books in its "narrower" NT canon but then adds 8 books to its "broader" canon? ("four sections of church order from a compilation called Sinodos, two sections from the Ethiopic Books of Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, and Ethiopic Didascalia.") You have a false presupposition, believing the teachings of your Church have a unity but they don’t. Much separates the ‘traditional’ Churches from each other, so I wish the false ideas of unity would just stop.

Will the real orthodoxy please stand up?

Let me know about #2 so I can respond.

jason

 

[Orthodox Christian]

I don't see where Jason answered any of the questions.

The request here is for internal, irrefutable proof of sola scriptura, and what Jason offered instead was an appealed to a shared faith tradition that asserts that scripture is 'infallible.'

We can logically conclude that since we both agree, the Scripture contain no errors whatsoever it is a valid source of religious information

We know that already, and this is not an answer to the questions.

Because your ‘rules’ are based on the presupposition that Scripture is not a valid source of doctrine ALONE

No, the rules are aimed at keeping the topic at hand as the topic at hand. We have seen endless obfuscations and attacks from Protestants when this topic is brought up. So again- the questions, please.

Jesus Christ our Lord tells us that ‘other’ forms are man made

Is this an attempt at an answer? Where are the verses?

Going by sola scriptura, how do you know what books to believe in and which not to. How do you know the Apocalype of John (Revelation) is true, but the Apocalypse of Peter is not? Both documents were read in the early Church.

Who's canon do you use? The Orthodoxy of the Nestorian Church

Another dodge. Nestorians are apostates. The question is about the canon of the NT which YOU use. Answer the questions, if you please.

Will the real orthodoxy please stand up?

One would assume that you could simply honor the requests of the OP. It's not too much to ask. You're not afraid to tackle these questions head on, are you?

 

[Orthodoxy]

I don't see where Jason answered any of the questions.

The request here is for internal, irrefutable proof of sola scriptura, and what Jason offered instead was an appealed to a shared faith tradition that asserts that scripture is 'infallible.'

We can logically conclude that since we both agree, the Scripture contain no errors whatsoever it is a valid source of religious information

We know that already, and this is not an answer to the questions.

Because your ‘rules’ are based on the presupposition that Scripture is not a valid source of doctrine ALONE

No, the rules are aimed at keeping the topic at hand as the topic at hand. We have seen endless obfuscations and attacks from Protestants when this topic is brought up. So again- the questions, please.

Jesus Christ our Lord tells us that ‘other’ forms are man made

Is this an attempt at an answer? Where are the verses?

Going by sola scriptura, how do you know what books to believe in and which not to. How do you know the Apocalype of John (Revelation) is true, but the Apocalypse of Peter is not? Both documents were read in the early Church.

Who's canon do you use? The Orthodoxy of the Nestorian Church

Another dodge. Nestorians are apostates. The question is about the canon of the NT which YOU use. Answer the questions, if you please.

Will the real orthodoxy please stand up?

One would assume that you could simply honor the requests of the OP. It's not too much to ask. You're not afraid to tackle these questions head on, are you?

My brother,

Why do people do this? Specific answers to valid questions cannot be given. I try to ask probing questions many that will allow the reader to answer "yes" or "no" thus avoiding the appearance of the evil one as stated by Jesus. I was never like this as a protestant, I always tried to be honest and question my own short commings because I believe the bible is 100% truth and I am not. It would appear people cannot be honest with themselves so they must attack others and dance a merry dance around issues that define what a "christian" really is. Wolves in sheep clothing perhaps?

Your unworthy and ever grateful servant,

Kyril

 

[Orthodoxy]

How can something that is "incomplete" be taken as the lone source of truth in the Christin faith?

John 21:25, And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Not everything about Jesus Christ and His life are written in the Bible that much is certain. How can the scripture be the lone source of truth when it does not contain all the "truth" but only parts of the "truth"?

Dont get me wrong. The bible as a whole is completely and utterly true, every word, however any logical person can see it does not contain all of the truth about Jesus Christ only part of the fulness. If the Scripture is part of the fulness then it must be contained inside the fulness and cannot be taken "alone" but must be taken with the "whole".

What according to the Scripture is the fulness of the truth? Jesus Christ, I believe it says.

If this is truth then what is the "fulness of Him" according to Scripture? Referance please.

Orthodoxy

 

[JM]

I’m sorry if you guys think I’m trying to dodge the questions, but I’m not.

The problem is with the questions because they contain logical fallacies. They are complicated or ridged questions, they limit how I answer. A good example is, ‘have you stopped beating your wife?’ No matter how I answer, the question is ridged against me. These questions lead to a false sense of dilemma by giving the ‘either, or’ assumption. This is a fallacy and it makes it difficult to give an answer when you guys won't allow for logic.

In question one I gave a logical answer. The first premise was Scripture is inerrant. The second premise was it is God breathed and no other source is. The conclusion is absolutely valid based on how the premises relate as facts. I could quote chapter and verse when it comes to the condemnation of ‘other’ forms of religious information, but your presupposition will not allow for it.

Time to shake the dust off my heels, once more.

 

[Orthodoxy]

Jason,

I’m sorry if you guys think I’m trying to dodge the questions, but I’m not.

Well you could have fooled me. A fool I am.

The problem is with the questions because they contain logical fallacies. They are complicated or ridged questions, they limit how I answer. A good example is, ‘have you stopped beating your wife?’ No matter how I answer, the question is ridged against me. These questions lead to a false sense of dilemma by giving the ‘either, or’ assumption. This is a fallacy and it makes it difficult to give an answer when you guys won't allow for logic.

Really. Your explaination of why you cant answer a question is to complicated IMHO.

Going by sola scriptura, how do you know what books to believe in and which not to.

?

That seems to me to be a very answerable question. How do we "christians" know the books of the bible are the only books that exist and who made that disision for all of us?

These are valid and answerable questions

In question one I gave a logical answer. The first premise was Scripture is inerrant. The second premise was it is God breathed and no other source is. The conclusion is absolutely valid based on how the premises relate as facts. I could quote chapter and verse when it comes to the condemnation of ‘other’ forms of religious information, but your presupposition will not allow for it.

The scripture are 100% truth, every jot and tittle. Can we agree?

Can we agree that the bible is 100% God breathed truth? I believe the bible is 100% truth, every word, do you agree?

Time to shake the dust off my heels, once more.

Oh please. Why must you treat us like dirt? I am not dirt friend I am living flesh and blood. I am not a piece of lint in your bell button. This is "christ's fruit" you portray?

Once more

? If this is how you feel then dont come back or this piece of dust will not believe a word you say.

In all sincerity and love,

Orthodoxy

 

[Orthodox Christian]

I’m sorry if you guys think I’m trying to dodge the questions, but I’m not.

The problem is with the questions because they contain logical fallacies. They are complicated or ridged questions, they limit how I answer.

Let's look at this first question:

Where in the bible does it say you should believe in only the authority of the bible?

The limit of possible answers is the bible, which sola scriptura adherents describe as the limit of possible answers to questions of truth. So the limit of possible sources to answer the question is every source you would use to answer the question.

Now why would I think you're dodging the question?

Time to shake the dust off my heels, once more

Maybe because after refusing a question from a full set of possible responses (ie, the whole bible), you quickly depart.

But let's not let one example demonstrate your unwillingness to look at the veracity of your belief/claims, let's have another example:

If the bible is the final authority on all matters and infallible, then who was the infallible man who decided whichs book to include in the bible?

Now this second question is complicated in that it does limit how you will answer- there has to either be somebody, or nobody. Again, all the answers in the known universe are available to you here.

If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball. If you can dodge a question, you can remain in the delusion that every iota of your belief system comes from the bible only.

A good example is, ‘have you stopped beating your wife?’ No matter how I answer, the question is ridged against me. These questions lead to a false sense of dilemma by giving the ‘either, or’ assumption. This is a fallacy and it makes it difficult to give an answer when you guys won't allow for logic.

I understand the type of question to which you are referring, but I don't see anything in these four questions that fits this criteria.

In question one I gave a logical answer. The first premise was Scripture is inerrant. The second premise was it is God breathed and no other source is.

The secodn statement is not a premise, it's an axiomatic statement based upon several key assumptions.

The conclusion is absolutely valid based on how the premises relate as facts. I could quote chapter and verse when it comes to the condemnation of ‘other’ forms of religious information, but your presupposition will not allow for it.

You object because you are challenged to scripturally support sola scriptura through positive proofs. Protestants have been taking the position of proving their case by negative, polemic attacks on Catholicism for 500 years. Challenged to find a positive proof of a foundational Protestant doctrine, the batter steps away from the plate, throws the equipment in the van, and drives home.

It becomes clear now why Protestants must always attack: because there is not sufficient positive ground for their faith axioms. Protestant would seem to be, therefore, a VERY accurate title.

 

[stray bullet]

I’m not sure who you’re asking, but I thought I take a shot.

It is for anyone that believes in the man-made tradition of sola scriptura.

From what you’re posted so far, I don’t believe your presuppositions will allow for you to examine the evidence anyone will post. In fact, your presupposition CAN NOT accept the evidence. You don’t believe the Bible is the only rule of faith for the believer, when evidence from Scripture is presented you can’t accept it because you don’t accept it as the only rule.

Wrong, what you are doing is saying I can't accept it so you won't bother.
Thus, you weasel out of answering the question, which you can't, but suggesting it isn't worth the trouble.

How about you post the facts, from the bible, and then if I dismiss it based on Tradition or Magisterium, which I won't, then you can back yourself up with that.

We can logically conclude that since we both agree, the Scripture contain no errors whatsoever it is a valid source of religious information. Since we don’t have a consensus as to what other forms for information we may use to establish doctrine, we seek no other. Jesus Christ our Lord tells us that ‘other’ forms are man made. Only Scripture is spoken of as ‘God breathed’, this is why it is essential to use Scripture and Scripture alone: it is errant, it is God breathed and other sources of religious information cannot make the same claims...Scripture also makes no such claim of 'other' sources of religious information...they are not God breathed.

Scripture doesn't say other sources are not God breathed, nor does it say it is a perfect source of information. Therefore, you conclusion isn't valid. Both Tradition and Magisterium hold that they too are also God-breathed.
Thus, we have three different sources all claiming to be inspired by God, none of which discredit the other.

I thought we just agreed, Scripture was infallible which means without error? Are you now saying it isn't? I think you mean to ask, 'how did we get the canon of Holy Scriptures?' If that is the case, say so and I'll do my best to answer.

No, I asked that if the bible is infallible, then who was the infallible man that canonized it? The Church did, thus, the apostles, the Church and the bible are all infallible.

Who's canon do you use? The Orthodoxy of the Nestorian Church, which recognizes only 22 books, excluding 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation? Maybe the Orthodoxy of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church gives the same 27 books in its "narrower" NT canon but then adds 8 books to its "broader" canon? ("four sections of church order from a compilation called Sinodos, two sections from the Ethiopic Books of Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, and Ethiopic Didascalia.") You have a false presupposition, believing the teachings of your Church have a unity but they don’t. Much separates the ‘traditional’ Churches from each other, so I wish the false ideas of unity would just stop.

This has nothing to do with the teachings of my Church, what canon I used or your so-called false unity.

I only asked how you know the Revelation of John is true and the Revelation of Peter (or Paul, etc) are not.

Surely, what I believe has no impact on the validity or invalidity of texts.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

My brother,

Why do people do this? Specific answers to valid questions cannot be given. I try to ask probing questions many that will allow the reader to answer "yes" or "no" thus avoiding the appearance of the evil one as stated by Jesus. I was never like this as a protestant, I always tried to be honest and question my own short commings because I believe the bible is 100% truth and I am not. It would appear people cannot be honest with themselves so they must attack others and dance a merry dance around issues that define what a "christian" really is. Wolves in sheep clothing perhaps?

Your unworthy and ever grateful servant,

Kyril

Good evening my brother:
I think your post contains the implicit answer to your question: Because you were always honest and willing to be examined under the light of scripture, it was inevitable that you would have to change. And THAT is very intimdating to many, if not most people.

People typically want to defend their pet theories and self-made traditions so that they don't have to change. They will lie to themselves and shut off the thought valve so as to not come face-to-face with the content of their thoughts.

Just like the Matrix, they sleep, and don't know it.

An honest Protestant answer to the questions asked on this thread, specifically "Where in the bible does it say you should believe in only the authority of the bible?" would be it's not verbatim in the scripture, but we believe that it is the position of the early Church- it is our tradition.

But to admit this obvious truth would be to undermine the leverage of being the only ones who 'truly read the scriptures without man's traditions' (their view of self). Without such leverage, they would have to enter into dialogue with us in honesty and humility, as opposed to condescension and disdain.

In fairness, many Protestants do. They are to me a delight, and I suspect some will one day be at the Cup with us. Some others will not, but they will remain Protestant without pretenses, and I will still enjoy them for that reason alone.

Christ is in our midst dear brother
James

 

[Orthodoxy]

James,

Christ is truely in our midst!

In fairness, many Protestants do. They are to me a delight, and I suspect some will one day be at the Cup with us. Some others will not, but they will remain Protestant without pretenses, and I will still enjoy them for that reason alone.

You made a comment a while back that I have endevored to attain since becoming Orthodox but come far short of attaining and that this seeing the "christlikeness" in all mankind.

You are truely a man of God. Again I do not say these things to puff you up or stroke you but I can only hope to attain this attitute towards the others that will not that you hold.

May God have mercy on my sinfilled soul.

Your unworthy servant,

Kyril

 

[thessalonian]

It is my belief that without the reference point of Catholicism/Orthodoxy they cannot answer the qeuestions. For they have no identity of their own. No reference point from which to judge truth. They claim the Bible is the reference point but then exalt themselves to i interpreter over the sacred scrptures and in the case of some (solo) even infallible interpreter. I'll be watching this thread to see if I am proven wrong in my contentions.

Blessings

 

[Orthodoxy]

It is my belief that without the reference point of Catholicism/Orthodoxy they cannot answer the qeuestions. For they have no identity of their own. No reference point from which to judge truth. They claim the Bible is the reference point but then exalt themselves to i interpreter over the sacred scrptures and in the case of some (solo) even infallible interpreter. I'll be watching this thread to see if I am proven wrong in my contentions.

Blessings

Thessalonian,

I completely agree. The protestant reformation is a foundation of sand. Each man is his own church, own pastor, own father, and own interpreter. Bankrupt back patters, strokers of their own egos, guidanceless, and all ones that seek wisdom from their own hearts. Rudderless ships floating in a boundless ocean. Doomed to collapse under its own weight of arrogance and pride.

For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. Jeremiah 2:13

or

For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have no understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge. Jeremiah 4:22

Paul warns of this:

2 Thessalonians 2:3

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

This is what all men do but expeccially the protestant reformation:

A man reads the bible then formulates and creates an image of Jesus Christ in his mind, then by his own power he takes this image of Jesus an sets the beast upon the throne of his heart and worships him as God. A great fall indeed.

Every man does this, we all set up gods in cars, homes, possessions, loves, etc etc etc. We all have our little idols in our hearts we worship. That is why this man has a spiritual father that has curbed the passions and can lead me through the pitfalls of my own mind.

I was just like these protestants here on this board and still have a little protestant in me to be burned off as chaff. So I can only say:

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us for we know not what we do"

That includes me.

In Christ,

Orthodoxy

 

[guibox]

Bankrupt back patters, strokers of their own egos, guidanceless, and all ones that seek wisdom from their own hearts. Rudderless ships floating in a boundless ocean. Doomed to collapse under its own weight of arrogance and pride....A man reads the bible then formulates and creates an image of Jesus Christ in his mind, then by his own power he takes this image of Jesus an sets the beast upon the throne of his heart and worships him as God. A great fall indeed.

And you couldn't have explained the corrupt, Midieval/Renaissance Catholic Church any better which is why the Reformation happened to begin with. Your last part fits Revelation 17 of the Whore of Babylon with the Catholic Church to a tee. A woman represents a church, the whore is a corrupt church 'drunk with the blood of the saints" decked out in jewelry and expensive linens"

Inquisition and filthy rich clergy strike a bell, anyone?

 

[thessalonian]

Bankrupt back patters, strokers of their own egos, guidanceless, and all ones that seek wisdom from their own hearts. Rudderless ships floating in a boundless ocean. Doomed to collapse under its own weight of arrogance and pride....A man reads the bible then formulates and creates an image of Jesus Christ in his mind, then by his own power he takes this image of Jesus an sets the beast upon the throne of his heart and worships him as God. A great fall indeed.

And you couldn't have explained the corrupt, Midieval/Renaissance Catholic Church any better which is why the Reformation happened to begin with. Your last part fits Revelation 17 of the Whore of Babylon with the Catholic Church to a tee. A woman represents a church, the whore is a corrupt church 'drunk with the blood of the saints" decked out in jewelry and expensive linens"

Inquisition and filthy rich clergy strike a bell, anyone?

SOP - If you can't answer the question attack the Catholic Church. Quibox gives his hope that is within him. The Gospel of anti-catholicism is his hope.

 

[guibox]

SOP - If you can't answer the question attack the Catholic Church. Quibox gives his hope that is within him. The Gospel of anti-catholicism is his hope.

Okay, for the second time...be observant would you or are you merely so wrapped up in what you alone write? IT'S gggggggGGGGGGGGGUIBOX!!!!!!! NO 'Q'...NONE WHATSOEVER!!!!

Second, if this is merely 'sola scriptura' why the attack specifically against the Protestants that you did? I was merely returning the favor.

Again, Orthodoxy, all the rules of etiquette seem to apply to everyone but yourself.

 

[thessalonian]

SOP - If you can't answer the question attack the Catholic Church. Quibox gives his hope that is within him. The Gospel of anti-catholicism is his hope.

Okay, for the second time...be observant would you or are you merely so wrapped up in what you alone write? IT'S gggggggGGGGGGGGGUIBOX!!!!!!! NO 'Q'...NONE WHATSOEVER!!!!

Second, if this is merely 'sola scriptura' why the attack specifically against the Protestants that you did? I was merely returning the favor.

Again, Orthodoxy, all the rules of etiquette seem to apply to everyone but yourself.

Where did I mention Protestantism?
Threads always of course heads for Catholicism as if "proving" us wrong (if someone were able to accomplish that someday) would somehow make you right. There's some logic for you. 2 + 2 = 6 is false, therefore 2 + 2 = 7 is true.

Buy the way its THHESSSAAAAALONIAN NOT ORRRTTHODOXY.

 

[JM]

What the fruit that falls from these trees, it'll kill ya!

I'm going to reply as to how we 'got' the canon of Scriptures, but due to the faulty logic used by the 'o'rthodox in this thread I'll start a new one.

I haven't treated anyone like dirt, but rather dust. :D

 

[Orthodox Christian]

What the fruit that falls from these trees, it'll kill ya!

I'm going to reply as to how we 'got' the canon of Scriptures, but due to the faulty logic used by the 'o'rthodox in this thread I'll start a new one.

I haven't treated anyone like dirt, but rather dust. :D

Why are you still here if you don't plan on answering simple, harmless, fair questions?

 

[guibox]

Buy the way its THHESSSAAAAALONIAN NOT ORRRTTHODOXY.

:-D Sorry. I was commenting on Orthodoxy and I assumed it was him who was commenting. However, my comments still apply. I was not coming out of the blue to immediately attack Catholicism but seeing as Orthodoxy decided to leave the subject to blatantly attack Protestantism, I was merely pointing out that his spiteful rhetoric applied to the Catholic Church quite nicely.