/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.1 (updated 2021-12-13)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 20000

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


Open file (45.57 KB 567x567 the-holy-bible.jpg)
The canon of scripture and sola scriptura Anonymous 09/19/2022 (Mon) 09:20:53 ID: 6e288b No.18239
My brothers, as the Antichrists of atheism come closer and closer to outright persecution of Christ's sheep, it is manifest that we are being forced closer and closer to those of false religions, who have always opposed our faith. I speak especially of the Romanists, whose hostility to the truth in general has not diminished, nor has their need to hear the only true gospel by which men may be saved. In order that you might have certainty, and to empower your proclamation of the gospel I have written up what I hope is a thorough refutation of their favorite attack on the truth which is also a refutation of most of the same objection when it is made by the atheists. The papists constantly for 500 years have pressed against us that we have no basis for believing in the authority of the bible, since this they say is contingent on the authority of the church. That is, they claim we have no legitimate reason to believe the books of scripture are scripture, so that we can have no more confidence in the canonicity of Matthew than of "Thomas". This they do because they recognize the reality of contradiction between their religion and the word of God, and see no alternative but to undermine and suppress the authority of the word of God so that it may be silent and condemn their pope and his underlings no longer. Consequently the papists are so assured of this attack that it is their preferred defense when their religion is shown to be in contrast with the divine religion beyond all doubt, it is the impenetrable fortress to which they retreat in order to justify their rejection of the teachings brought against them which they do not believe, but it is little more than a disheveled hamlet which takes away all doubt that their religion is from another spirit. The papists do not all present their attack in the same way. Some of the less intelligent and more shameless papists especially at the time of the Reformation have more consistent in their blasphemy accused sacred scripture of having no more authority than that of the koran apart from the nod of the pope. A few of them utterly without sense say that the books were not inspired until the church defined them as such. Most of them only deny that we may have knowledge of the books apart from the authority of their magisterium. But in all cases their purpose is to deny the authority of bible so the authority of the magisterium may take its place. We however say that the sole basis of the authority of scripture is its divine nature as the very words of God. The bible has absolute authority over all other sources because it is God speaking to man. To disobey it, is to disobey God. Now, there are but two styles of religion: human and divine. Human religion is conceived of from human wisdom and demonic lies, and because it is simply made up among sinful men, without any truth, and in rebellion to the true God, it is automatically false religion. Divine religion however is derived from divine revelation, it is a creation of the true God who condescends to man to deliver him the truth; it is automatically true religion. And while the true believers have not always had scripture, we have never been without His word, since He first condescended to our human weakness to guide His people through their sojourn in this fallen world, saying "Where are you, Adam?" Now the holy scriptures are in this age the sum and total of the words of God. Rome does not deny this, she cannot, lest the mask be thrown off and Satan revealed from behind the guise of an angel of light. And since the scriptures are the only God-breathed word which we possess, they absolutely must be the rule of faith and practice for the Church, the norm which norms all other norms, the standard to which alone the Church conforms. To introduce any other thing in addition to (and in place of) the holy scriptures as a source of religion is to make the religion human and not divine. The present papist attack which is made under the name of the canon is really an attack on the authenticity of scripture, for their attack is not different from questioning why Matthew is authentic and Thomas is not. We answer that first a distinction must be made between subjective knowledge and objective authority. For as we have established the sole cause of scriptural authority is the inspiration of God, this is not the cause of our knowing it, yet since that is the sole cause of its authority the causes of our knowledge will not impugn its authority in any way. Thus at the outset the attempt to prostitute their pope to us is cut down since they concede the inspiration of the scriptures, which makes the charge an irrelevance because it does not make the condemnation of scripture against them silent nor alleviate the tribunal of scripture upon them. There are numerous causes by which we come to know the bible, one of which is properly called tradition, not the pretended irreformable body of errors of Rome, but the mere passing down of Christian truth, as we come to possess the bible firstly only because it was previously possessed by Christians before us. Another is self-authenticating mark of inspiration impressed into the words of the text, which the regenerate man recognizes merely in the reading of it as he recognizes light by sight. Yet no matter what leads us to the knowledge of scripture nothing will convince us of its divine inspiration apart from the immediate grace of the Holy Spirit in raising us to spiritual life and granting us to believe, for "My sheep hear my voice and the voice of another they will not follow". Indeed mere ascension by human wisdom could never let us ascend to these heights of heaven, but only the condescension of God will bring it down to us. The papists will object and call this "subjective", but a subjective experience is not the basis of our believing, merely that which grants us to believe. Again, the reason I believe is the inspiration of the bible, and what allows me to believe is the grace of the Holy Spirit. First I believe, and then the bible tells me why I believe. We ask the papists whether it is even possible for sola scriptura to be true or whether it must be rejected a priori? Is there any possible world in which sola scriptura is true, and if so what does it look like? We think their answer will be that there must be an inspired table of contents, yet we must question whether this would actually have any impact whatsoever. For the atheist who rejects God's word already would the addition of a 67th book that defines the previous 66 and itself as being the authoritative word of God increase his confidence of that claim? Obviously not. And for the Christian who already accepts the authority of those 66, what difference would it make to him that such a book was added confirming to him what he already believed? Nothing whatsoever. Since such an inspired table of contents would make the canon of divine revelation itself divinely revealed acceptance of that canonical definition would require accepting the divine revelation of which it is part, making its addition entirely redundant. In other words, it would be a waste of God's breath. Indeed, what has Rome's tradition and dogmatic definition done to increase the faith of heathens in the bible as God's authoritative word? Do you think if you pressed an atheist that he should believe the bible is God's word and therefore obey it because the pope said so he would find that argument compelling? Would he not instead laugh in your face and rightly so? Indeed, this argument only has meaning in this specific context, which is why the papists are observably inconsistent with its presuppositions and implications in all other apologetic contexts, because it does not actually make a case for their god-king's pretensions at all, those are merely snuck through, it actually is little more than an unmitigated attack on the authority of the word of God, for which reason it is almost as popular among atheists as among papists. The ultimate necessity for Rome to deny sola scriptura is because if she were to humbly submit herself to the authority of God she would have no basis to uphold any of her numerous doctrines of demons which she maintains to this day, namely justification by works and their merit, human satisfactions and indulgences, transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass, the ecumenical pontiff and primacy of the pope, Mary as queen of heaven and co-redemptrix, which are sufficient to make the religion intolerable and the church false, in which salvation could not be obtained. Make no mistake, Romanism is a demonic religion, much like its predecessors Arianism and Gnosticism it is a counterfeit Christianity designed to be a convincing fake to lead many astray. It is essential that we continue to evangelize Romanists not only because of the general call of the gospel to all unbelievers but also a specific calling to the elect caught under her tyranny to "Come out of her, my people", and we are guilty of the blood of all men when we say that Rome is Christian and her slaves are our brothers. She is no Christian church but is apostate and heretical, having failed from the faith once delivered to the saints, teaching various deadly heresies and thrusting them forward to be believed under pain of a curse.
Denominations don't matter. Just reach out to Jesus and prepare yourself. My non denominational church doesn't believe in the end days but when the end days come they won't be able to ignore it.
>>18241 >The ultimate necessity for Rome to deny sola scriptura is because if she were to humbly submit herself to the authority of God she would have no basis to uphold any of her numerous doctrines of demons which she maintains to this day, namely justification by works and their merit, human satisfactions and indulgences, transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass, the ecumenical pontiff and primacy of the pope, Mary as queen of heaven and co-redemptrix, which are sufficient to make the religion intolerable and the church false, in which salvation could not be obtained. Make no mistake, Romanism is a demonic religion, much like its predecessors Arianism and Gnosticism it is a counterfeit Christianity designed to be a convincing fake to lead many astray. It is essential that we continue to evangelize Romanists not only because of the general call of the gospel to all unbelievers but also a specific calling to the elect caught under her tyranny to "Come out of her, my people", and we are guilty of the blood of all men when we say that Rome is Christian and her slaves are our brothers. She is no Christian church but is apostate and heretical, having failed from the faith once delivered to the saints, teaching various deadly heresies and thrusting them forward to be believed under pain of a curse.
>conflating gnostic striving with the materialism of rome
>>18245 I compared Romanism to Arianism and Gnosticism because they were the previous "great enemies" of the Church. But Rome is much more similar to Gnosticism in terms of wacky zaniness and inconsistency with the basics of Christianity than the Arians were. In Romanism, forgiveness of sins is obtained in part by walking through certain doors in certain times of the year. That is not a metaphor, it is the literal act of walking through the doorway which results in a "plenary indulgence" being granted to you, which gives you the merits of Jesus, Mary and the saints to forgive "temporal punishments" which are held against you after being restored to a state of grace by the "sacrament of penance". This has NOT changed since the Reformation, it was explicitly upheld by the Council of Trent at which Rome became formally apostate. The ecumenist error which runs rampant in the modern Church (which is surely a curse from God upon the Church and the world) is the first step in the descent of the modernists. It is utterly modern, and it was unthinkable to all our forefathers in the faith. A necessary consequence of this error is to repudiate the Reformation as a mistake, Martin Luther was essentially wrong, Zwingli (a martyr as well) and Calvin were wrong. They were just being divisive in the body of Christ. If this is the case and the gospel of Jesus Christ is merely a side issue then why not hedge your bets and partake of the works righteousness system of Rome if Jesus is not the only way. Some of you will say "but they believe we're saved by believing in Jesus". Is it the meaning of these words or the mouthing of them that matters? Because when a Romanist says that, he is including in that statement the entire sacramental system of the church of Rome, wherein he is made right with God in baptism because it changes his soul and makes him actually righteous (there is no one righteous and sinful at the same time), and when he commits a mortal sin he loses that peace with God having ceased to be inwardly righteous, and must restore it by confessing to a priest, after which he will need to perform penances and good works to remove the stain of temporal punishments and grow in the grace of justification. He will need to participate in the sacrifice of the mass in order to receive the benefits of the death of Christ, which will be lost the next time he sins mortally. When he commits a venial sin he will also bring temporal punishments upon himself, which when he dies will be cleansed in purgatory by satisfying God through his own suffering until he is fully righteous again as he was at the moment of his baptism and on that account alone be allowed to enter the presence of God. I encourage all to stop reading this post right now and go read the Book of Galatians cover to cover. Brothers, is this the gospel in which you have believed, is this the way you preach to the lost? I hope it isn't, because if it is you will die in your sins. If these are our brothers in Christ and we do not need to evangelize them then surely it is the same with the Jehovah's Witnesses, since they believe we're saved by believing in Jesus. >but they don't even believe in the real Jesus Doesn't matter, shut up Athanasius, those words have no definition, they say them and that's enough. For that matter the Gnostics were surely our brothers since they believed we're saved by believing in Jesus. >but but Doesn't matter, shut up Irenaeus, you're being divisive in the body of Christ. None of it matters, they say we're saved by believing in Jesus.
>>18239 >>18243 Indeed, this is correct. For a long time, I was quite puzzled as to why "Higher Criticism" notes and footnotes, that are endemic to Liberal "Christianity," were present in Catholic Bibles and Study Bibles, as I had thought that Catholicism was relatively theologically conservative. I then had a "Eureka!" moment when I stumbled across a video of a Catholic lauding the notoriously atheistic New Oxford Annotated Bible, for molding his theological views in a positive way. To give just a taste of the general character of the NOAB, here's a note from it on Genesis 2:19-20: "Yet the Lord God here contrasts with the all-powerful deity depicted in Ch 1; The Lord God creates the animals in a comical, failed attempt to make a truly corresponding helper for the human." When I inquired of the video maker as to why and how the NOAB changed his views, he stated that it had pushed him away from Protestantism, particularly Sola Scriptura. At that moment it clicked: the reason why Roman Catholicism has allowed Liberal "Higher Criticism" to infiltrate it's Bibles and it's church, is in order to erode the authority of Scripture, and thus further shore up the authority of the Magisterium. The fact that Roman Catholics literally threw Scripture under the bus in order to further empower their "church" should give anyone pause.
>>18239 >transubstantiation isnt this actually a good doctrine?
>>18319 Nope
>>18353 why?
>>18373 Because Catholic
>>18373 Transubstantiation is a medieval concept based on Aristotelian philosophy. It is the unbiblical belief that the entire 'substance' of bread and wine are converted into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. This error led quickly to the adoration of the host and the sacrifice of the mass, which are an abomination that God hates.
>>18377 I struggle to see a difference between Lutheran and Calvinist conceptions and Catholic
>>18435 Lutherans believe that the bread stays bread but that it is also the body of Christ (but not that it is transformed). Calvinists believe in the bread either being purely symbolic if they hold to the theology of Zwingli or in a spiritual presence if they hold to the theology of Calvin.
https://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. However, this is only true in the shallowest sense. The principle is strongly indicated by verses such as Acts 17:11, which commends the Bereans for testing doctrine—taught by an apostle, no less—to the written Word. Sola scriptura is all-but-explicitly indicated in 1 Corinthians 4:6, where Paul warns not to “go beyond what is written.” Jesus Himself criticized those who allowed traditions to override the explicit commands of God in Mark 7:6–9.
>>18465 >Acts 17:11 Doesn't say it was the only source they consulted or the only source anyone should consult. Catholics welcome scripture citation. > 1 Corinthians 4:6 Paul also says to hold fast to was was taught orally. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 > Mark 7:6-9 Jesus criticized human traditions; but says nothing about abandoning divine traditions, which, of course we know exist, like what books are divinely inspired.
>>18532 >he thinks his Popish traditions are divine
>>18534 >the Canon of scripture is a "Popish tradition." Well. Actually, yes. It is a Catholic tradition.
>>18532 >Doesn't say it was the only source they consulted or the only source anyone should consult. Really? >Catholics welcome scripture citation. It doesn't mean much to affirm something in name when you deny it in substance. >Paul also says to hold fast to was was taught orally. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is specifically talking about the gospel of Jesus Christ (which Rome has denied coincidentally) whether they heard it through Paul's preaching or from an epistle he had written. Read the whole chapter >Jesus criticized human traditions; but says nothing about abandoning divine traditions How can you tell the difference? Because the rabbis would say the same thing. They're following the traditions of the elders, they say it came to them from Moses. Are they wrong? See Jesus held the pharisees were holding to an extra biblical tradition as an authority through which the scriptures were to be read. Jesus held them accountable to the scriptures, He said they should have known better, but could they have? Did Jesus judge the pharisees for doing nothing wrong in Mark 7? The only way we can know better is by testing our traditions by the standard of the word of God.
>>18536 Catholic just means universal in the ancient context, not Roman Catholicism. It's a catholic tradition in so far as God gave it to the world through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
>>18537 >Really? Yes. That verse does not say what you want it to say. >you deny it in substance. Catholics deny absolutely nothing about Scripture. >The gospel of Jesus Christ (which Rome has denied coincidentally) whether they heard it through Paul's preaching or from an epistle he had written. Read the whole chapter DING DING DING. The Gospel of Jesus Christ. Did Jesus write anything? If not, then there MUST be another source of revelation, and thus, sola scriptura fails. >How can you tell the difference? I don't make that determination. The Church does by consulting Scripture and tradition, as Paul instructed. Jesus founded a single Church in Matthew 17 and promised it would never err, lest all men be damned. Leaving it up to any one's personal interpretation is a recipe for disaster.
>>18539 Who wrote the table of contents in your Bible?
>>18545 The Holy Spirit, pharisee.
>>18544 >Yes Yikes >Catholics deny absolutely nothing about Scripture. Why papists find this so compelling? "I said I don't deny anything in scripture, so it's true!" >Did Jesus write anything? If not, then there MUST be another source of revelation, and thus, sola scriptura fails. I'm not entirely certain this is serious. Are you trolling me right now? >I don't make that determination Huh good point, I guess I never considered ignoring the problem entirely and pretending it doesn't exist to make it go away. The pharisees clearly didn't make that determination either, so don't you share in their condemnation? Did the pharisees do anything wrong? What did Jesus judge them for? >promised it would never err When did He do that?
>>18546 The Holy Spirit came down and put pen to paper?
>>18548 Would you claim to be a Christian?
>>18547 >Yikes Not an argument. >Why papists find this so compelling? "I said I don't deny anything in scripture, so it's true!" >why fundies find this so compelling? "I said they deny scripture, so it's true!" >Are you trolling me right now? Not an argument. >ignoring the problem entirely and pretending it doesn't exist to make it go away. This doesn't address what I wrote. Either you didn't understand the answer or you are not arguing in good faith. Which is it? >The pharisees I already explained this and I'm not doing it again.
>>18550 God bless you with repentance, friend.
>>18549 >Would you claim to be a Christian? I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not created, of one essence with the Father through Whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; And He rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father; And He will come again with glory to judge the living and dead. His kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets. In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come. Amen.
>>18553 >Who proceeds from the Father, Fascinating.
The LORD God Jesus Christ said feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, and love your fellow man and that faith is required. Protestants say "Ah! I don't have to do that feed the poor rubbish! Faith is all that is required!" The Bible says that the Bible isn't enough, you will not understand it without the Apostoistic Church and the Church gave you that bible anyway. Prostestants say that the Bible alone, throw out the Church created by Jesus Christ and everything in the Bible that shows that Christ came to renew the covenant broken by the talmud and the religion of man. It is amazing to watch.
>>18602 >The LORD God Jesus Christ said feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, and love your fellow man and that faith is required. Protestants say "Ah! I don't have to do that feed the poor rubbish! Faith is all that is required!" >Prostestants say that the Bible alone, throw out the Church created by Jesus Christ and everything in the Bible that shows that Christ came to renew the covenant broken by the talmud and the religion of man. These are strawmen >The Bible says that the Bible isn't enough, you will not understand it without the Apostoistic Church and the Church gave you that bible anyway. And this is false
>>18626 This is false and a stawman. I win.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

no cookies?