>Sola Scriptura
>Only Scripture is infallible
>No infallible authority exists that says what books are scripture, just tradition which is fallible
>Therefore the Bible is fallible
>Nothing is infallible
woo m8
>Sola Scriptura. >Only Scripture is infallible
I mean you can do that with most things so that isn’t a good argument.
>Church Councils are infallible
>My Church interprets which Church Councils are real church councils.
>No the ones that disagree with me aren’t real councils, they are fallible
>therefore my inconsistent tradition of councils are fallible
>nothing is infallible.
woo m8
>The Bible is so worthless I wouldn't know it had value if not for the papacy saying so
Brutal self own, Christcuck
In this cases it was the councils that set the canon not the Pope.
Maybe browse less Reddit and read more LULZtory
>>No infallible authority exists that says what books are scripture
False, God who is infallible determines scripture
>Denying the existence of the Holy Ghost
Uh oh
Non sequitur
By what infallible authority do you know which books belong in the NT?
It’s no use to argue this way. While Catholics come to know God through the church, Protestants have their experience of God through their Bible, no amount of logic or dancing around will change what they see as divine. Save your energy for easier battles like the fact that the Bible establishes both councils (Acts 15) and apostolic succession/hierarchy (Titus). Imo
Councils were corrupted over time by Roman politics. Justinian literally wrote the articles of the Second Council of Constantinople.
Sure
The Holy Ghost who witnesses in the earth
Just like the earliest Christians.
Read Eusebius’ Church History
All canonical books were widely accepted prior to any council.
Non-canonical books were not widely accepted
Eusebius gives a canvas of how many churches accepted which books.
The only book of note is Revelation, which Eusebius states that he personally has faith in, but which has a roughly 50/50 acceptance.
But yet, does any Catholic assert that the canonical books were non-canon up until their canonization?
Not at all. Thus even they agree with me, that the Holy Ghost is the true infallible witness in the earth.
The only coherent, consistent Christianity the Holy Spirit has ever inspired is Catholicism. Everything else is wildly all over the place.
How much church history have you actually read
Reading the Ante-Nicene writings alone would prove yourself incorrect (nothing against Nicaea it’s just a time period)
How so?
>consistent
>Vatican II
>The Holy Ghost
/thread. But the athiests will never accept this answer.
Atheists don't make threads that are critical about the Solas. That's Catholics and Orthodox.
I don't understand why you guys are always at eachothers necks and can't find some middle ground to agree to disagree.
prottie tripfag bitch put in his place, nice work anon
>And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
>If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
The witness of God (The Spirit) is greater than men
I have it on fallible authority from the early church
I don't think you know what that means
I think he meant "Therefore the canon is fallible", which is sequitur
P4 is a non sequitur
Just because the potential for fallibility exists, does not mean every authority was corrupt.
Don't you see the problem there? Sola Scriptura inherently acknowledges that any given book or verse of the Bible is not actually infallible because no infallible authority says so.
The Didache may indeed be free from error, but no infallible authority identifies it as infallible, therefore it is not recognized as Scripture. Revelation has no infallible authority identifying it as infallible (according to Sola Scriptura) so it is in the same boat as the Didache. But no protestant would question its classification as Scripture
The Holy Spirit infallibly guiding fallible men on matters of faith (including the Canon) is what Sacred Tradition is
It doesn't matter because the holy Spirit is real and influences things in our lives and if you think God was going to let a group of corrupt human beings compile a collection of letters and books to represent Him then you don't really know or understand God or how He operates.
And yet you say the Holy Ghost must be ratified of men
>No prophecy of the scriptures is of ANY private interpretation.
As much as that verse is warped; let me ask: WHAT is the opposite of private? Public.
The scriptures are public domain.
No man nor group of men has authority over what is or isn't God's word. He is that He is, and His Word IS.
Do you believe that the Holy Ghost witnesses to humanity* or not?
Does The Water have to be ratified by men to be believed? Does The Blood have to be ratified by men to be believed? Does The Spirit have to be ratified by men to be believed?
Sacred Tradition is a gift from the Holy Spirit, as much as the Bible is. What I've said before is not that man needs to ratify what is inspired. But that Sacred Tradition is from and inspired by the Holy Spirit and is the completion of the public revelation given by the Scriptures
The Scriptures are Sacred Tradition.
Does Tradition contradict, if it comes from the Holy Ghost?
Anything that contradicts the Tradition which is the Scriptures must not be Sacred Tradition, correct?
The Scriptures have the ultimate say. Since they are the Tradition on which all other Tradition is built, correct?
Tradition doesn't contradict Scripture. To apostolic churches, that argument is like israelites saying the NT contradicts the OT.
Scriptures don't have the ultimate say for everything if they don't identify which books are scripture. Tradition (inspired by God) is the ultimate authority there. Also where there are disagreements on interpretation of Scripture (as human interpretation is fallible), Tradition (inspired by God) serves as the ultimate authority there as well.
Okay and if I point out how Christ (for example) said to beware
>them that desire to go about in long robes,
and
>them that enlarged the borders of their garments
Your only argument for why "Tradition" doesn't contradict the words of Christ is "because it doesn't"
you're not too bad for a namefag Solitaire. I don't know what you're fully about, but you seem to have a good grasp on the faith.
Are you reading that as Jesus forbidding long robes?
Not necessarily on it's own.
But especially in conjunction with
>Abstain from all appearance of evil.
As written by Jesus' Apostle; Yes it is forbidding long robes; because it is commanded to abstain from even the appearance* of evil.
Together with Christ telling us to
>beware
Why would a Christian desire to appear* like someone whom Christ has told us to
>beware
?
Yeah because nuance exists. Like how Jesus can say call no man rabbi or father, yet you probably called the adult in your 6th grade class "teacher" and you probably call your male parent "father" or something equivalent. Its the same argument.
If long robes are intrinsically evil like your exegesis implies, are you also repulsed by county judges and star wars movies?
Jesus also condemns the Pharisees for
>making the commandments of God of none effect
so, when Jesus says
>call no man father
Let us use NUANCE
Are you saying that Jesus' command to call no man father is... pointless? Call your Dad Father, call God Father... and also call EVERY SINGLE Priest "Father"?
That's a lot of fathers.
You see, you can your father "Father", as well as God "Father" but no one else; thus Jesus' command becomes actual.
But again I say
If we are to
>Abstain from all appearance of evil
Why would we seek to call thousands and thousands of men "father" if Jesus says
>No man
>You see, you can your father "Father", as well as God "Father" but no one else
Then do you think Paul sinned by calling himself the father of his followers in 1 Corinthians 4:15? Because that is where the tradition of calling priests "Father" comes from.
"Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel."
When we call priests "Father" we mean it in the same way Paul used it. As someone who helps raise the church up in the Gospel. It is by no means a way to equivicate them to God. The same way we can say there are thousands and thousands of teachers (rabbis) in the US, but we don't mean it in the same way the Jesus forbade.
Good response.
how many fathers do you have according to 1 Corinthians 4:15?
there are 37,000 catholic priests in the US alone
if you called all of them "Father", does that count as
>many
?
Paul won the Corinthians to Christ, "begetting" them in a sense. But no one calls HIM "father"
Good rebuttal.
>Its ok for Paul to call himself other people's "father" but its sinful for his followers to call him "father"
that is non-sensical.
Remember he is speaking to the Corinthians in that passage, not us today. He's literally the first to go there to convert souls. Of course they don't have many spiritual fathers, no one else came before him.
Also, it's telling that there's been no rebuttal over my points on calling people rabbi/teacher. It was forbade in the exact same verse and is a title used way more often than "father", but it is always overlooked.
I'm going to bed. If you really want to challenge your beliefs, look up rebuttals to any arguments you have against Catholicism from Catholic sources. I do the same with Protestantism and it's really helped me out. God bless brother!
You're so close to realizing your religion is promulgated on a foundation of lies.
We're all brothers through Christ. Though there may be some theological understandings that differ from the Protestants and Catholics and Orthodox, there's many common grounds we as followers of Christ share.
A lot of Protestants seem to go too far and basically make the Bible into an idol.
The Bible is the word of God. I'm not a Protestant but to deny this is blasphemy.
>make the Bible into an idol.
Not possible
>I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name
God has magnified His Word above His name.
It's not possible to put God's word too high.
>HOW DARE YOU SAY THIS YOU FUCKING DISGUSTING FILTHY PAPIST
>REASON IS THE DEVIL'S WHORE, I ALREADY TOLD YOU
Martin Luther died centuries ago.
he's not here in this thread right now
His stupid followers are, though, and they would put him to shame
What does it mean to be a follower of Martin Luther?
And how is it relevant to clear Bible verses?
Do you mean to imply that Martin Luther wrote Psalm 138?
>What does it mean to be a follower of Martin Luther?
No idea. You change opinions as you change underwear
if only catholicucks and orthodogs would apply the same logic to their traditions, insane church fathers and autistic councils, they would leave that shitty religion