Martin Luther, the heretic who founded Protestantism and Inventor of the Born Again Dogma: SOLA SCRIPTURA [BIBLE ALONE]
-
Thank you po sa response niyo... hindi ko rin maexpress ung thoughts ko using the right example or terms, at alam ko pong insufficiently expressed ung ibang words ko, pero nahuhurt po ako tuwing gnagmit nyo po ung mga masasamang salita... sbi nga po sa 1 Peter 3:15 "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" .... wag din po kyo magassume na 'sbi ni pastor' etc. or miyembro ako ng gnto or doon or nakikigulo lang ako di nyo naman ako kilala e... pero ttry ko po iexpress ng mas maayos at iproof read ung mga cnsbi ko po... ninumberan ko na rin po, pra ung pagreply po hindi nyo na po kelangan putulin, ibased nyo na po sa numbering ko po, pra po hindi po mwla ung thought or context.
1. Being unable to find Sola Scriptura in the Bible is not really an issue if you take Sola Scriptura down to its essence with seriousness. We can't even find the list of books that should be included in the Bible, but does it invalidate the Holiness of His Word? People listed the books to be included in the canon and did it out of love for His word and through God's guidance. The list of the books to include was not written in any books of the Bible but the Bible is very much trusted. We can't find the phrase "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, but believed in Sola Scriptura out of love for His word as the sole authority. The Bible is not merely a diary, but the texts are inspired by God.
2. Again, believing in Sola Scriptura does not go against the traditions and even the apostles being entrusted with the work as long as the traditions and the preachings of the apostles are in accordance to God's will which we should expect such important things to be written in the Bible. Remember, the scripture came after and not before. Sola Scriptura is applicable to us, but not much to the apostles, because it was not written yet when they were preaching in the early years.
3. If traditions are in the Bible--since we both agree they were practiced or believed even before they were written--then the traditions and the scriptures are actually not contradicting each other. That's why Sola Scriptura does not say "abolish the traditions", the scripture is in fact a written account of when these traditions were started and why such tradition should be maintained. Do not force that Sola Scriptura cannot accept traditions. You mentioned 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold THE TRADITIONS which ye have been taught, whether by WORD, or our EPISTLE." meaning traditions were taught in the Bible and much more allowed to be practiced. (For the phrase "by Word", see #6). How can Sola Scriptura not allow traditions when the traditions were written in the Scripture itself? Thus, it's not illogical to say Sola Scriptura accepts traditions that were written in the Bible, and of course it cannot accept traditions that contradict those written in the Bible.
4. Based on our conversation, it really makes me think that you may be referring to traditions that are not written in the Bible? Since if the traditions are also in the Bible, then it makes no sense to separate them or even to say that "if it's Bible alone then we cannot have traditions" because the Scriptures writes about the traditions as well. You keep saying that Sola Scriptura cannot go with traditions, then those traditions must not be found in the Bible or are contradicting the Bible, making the traditions and the Scripture incompatible. So do you think that the traditions are different from what is written in the Bible? In what sense?
- Fr. Abe, CRS said...
-
[Thank you po sa response niyo...]
YOU ARE WELCOME.
[hindi ko rin maexpress ung thoughts ko using the right example or terms, at alam ko pong insufficiently expressed ung ibang words ko,]
KASI NGA MALI, ILLOGICAL AND UNBIBLICAL ANG SOLA SCRIPTURA MO. NO MATTER HOW GOOD YOU ARE IN EXPLAINING THINGS IF THE POSITION THAT YOU ARE HOLDING IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY THEN YOU ARE BOUND TO APPEAR ILLOGICAL AND UNREASONABLE.
HAVE PITY ON YOURSELF AND ON YOUR SOUL... THROW TO THE GARBAGE BAG THAT SOLA SCRIPTURA.
[pero nahuhurt po ako tuwing gnagmit nyo po ung mga masasamang salita...]
I AM NOT USING MASASAMANG SALITA. I AM ONLY DESCRIBING THE QUALITY OF YOUR REASONING WHICH AFFECTS YOUR PERSON. YOU ARE THROWING STUPIDITIES AND SO I CALLED THE SPADE A SPADE. YOU YOURSELF ADMIT THAT YOU CANNOT CLARIFY YOUR TERMS. IT IS NOT JUST FAILURE TO CLARIFY, IT IS FAILURE TO PROVE YOUR POSITION WHICH YOU UPHELD AS IF A BIBLICAL TRUTH. IT MAKES YOU PATHETIC AND NAIVE.
[sbi nga po sa 1 Peter 3:15 "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect"]
IF YOU WANT TO BE RESPECTED STOP THROWING STUPIDITIES AROUND. YOU ARE MAKING A FOOL OUT OF US AND THEREFORE WE SHARPLY TELL YOU THAT WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS WRONG. IMAGINE, YOU KEEP ON TELLING US THAT TRADITIONS MUST BE IN THE BIBLE, THEN YOUR SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT IN THE BIBLE. HE, HE, HE... HINDI BA KATANGAHAN IYAN. WAG MO NAMAN KAMING IDAMAY SA YO.
[.... wag din po kyo magassume na 'sbi ni pastor' etc. or miyembro ako ng gnto or doon or nakikigulo lang ako di nyo naman ako kilala e...]
YUN NAMAN PALA E, BAKIT HINDI KA MAGPAKILALA? BAKIT KINAHIHIYA MO BA ANG SARILI MONG PAGKATAO? O NAHIHIYA KA SA SOLA SCRIPTURA MO? HE, HE, HE...
[pero ttry ko po iexpress ng mas maayos at iproof read ung mga cnsbi ko po... ninumberan ko na rin po, pra ung pagreply po hindi nyo na po kelangan putulin, ibased nyo na po sa numbering ko po, pra po hindi po mwla ung thought or context.]
ABA, SINASAGOT KITA NG PUNTO PER PUNTO. KUNG ANG SENTENCE MO AY MARAMING POINTS E DI SIEMPRE SASAGUTIN KO ANG MGA PUNTO DUON NA DAPAT KONG SAGUTIN AT LIWANAGIN. KUNG GUSTO MO NA ANG SENTENCE MO AY HINDI PUTULIN, DO NOT MIX SEVERAL POINTS IN ONE SENTENCE.
-
[1. Being unable to find Sola Scriptura in the Bible is not really an issue if you take Sola Scriptura down to its essence with seriousness.]
HA, HA, HA... THIS IS STUPID.
SOLA SCRIPTURA MEANS "BIBLE ALONE" - THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY AUTHORITY FOR FAITH AND MORALS AND FOR ONE'S SALVATION. IF YOU WILL TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA THEN YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE BIBLE THE SOLE OR ONLY AUTHORITY TO GUIDE YOUR FAITH.
THE ESSENCE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA IS BIBLE ALONE. IT IS THEREFORE THE MAIN ISSUE. YOU ARE ASKING US TO TAKE THE BIBLE ONLY. THEREFORE, THE ESSENCE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA DEMANDS THAT IT MUST BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE EXPLICITLY.
IF SOLA SCRIPTURA CANNOT BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE THEN IT IS UNBIBLICAL AND THEREFORE MUST BE REJECTED.
BIBLE ALONE KA DYAN TAPOS WALA PALA SA BIBLE E DI NILOLOKO MO KAMI. PANGGOGOYO ANG TAWAG DON. IN OTHER WORDS: GINAGAGO MO ANG SARILI MO AT ANG KAPWA MO!
[We can't even find the list of books that should be included in the Bible, but does it invalidate the Holiness of His Word?]
HA, HA, HA... HINDI NAMIN PROBLEMA YAN KASI NGA MAY BIBLE + SACRED TRADITION KAMI. THE CONTENT OF THE SCRIPTURES ARE IN THE BIBLE BUT THE LIST OF THE CANON IS FOUND IN THE SACRED TRADITION OF THE CHURCH.
NGAYON, KUNG SOLA SCRIPTURA KA... TAPOS KA. KASI NGA WALA SA BIBLE ANG CANON OF SCRIPTURES. DI BA KATANGAHAN NA NANINIWALA KA SA CANON OF SCRIPTURES GAYONG WALA ITO SA BIBLE HABANG 'BIBLE ONLY' ANG DOGMA MO?
SABI MO BIBLIA LANG ANG DAPAT PANIWALAAN O PAGBATAYAN NG FAITH, BAKIT MO PINAPANIWALAAN ANG CANON OF SCRIPTURES GAYONG WALA ITO SA BIBLIA? MULI, SINASAMPAL KA NG SARILI MONG ARGUMENTO.
YOU ALREADY ACCEPTED THE CANON OF SCRIPTURES AS EXTRA-BIBLICAL SOURCE. THEN, IT MADE YOU A FOOL. YOU ARE TEACHING SOLA SCRIPTURA YET YOU HAVE DOCTRINES OUTSIDE THE BIBLE. WHAT ARE YOU THEN? A LIAR!
IF YOU WANT TO BE TRUE TO SOLA SCRIPTURA THEN NO EXTRA BIBLICAL SOURCES MUST BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE YOU UPHELD BIBLE ALONE.
[People listed the books to be included in the canon and did it out of love for His word and through God's guidance.]
THOSE PEOPLE ARE THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
[The list of the books to include was not written in any books of the Bible but the Bible is very much trusted.]
BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE BELIEVED IN BIBLE + SACRED TRADITION. THAT ARGUMENT IS NOT VALID FOR SOLA SCRIPTURA FOLLOWERS. IT IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY WITH SOLA SCRIPTURA. HE, HE, HE...
[We can't find the phrase "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, but believed in Sola Scriptura out of love for His word as the sole authority.]
THE PHRASE AND THE BELIEF FOR THE BIBLE AS SOLE AUTHORITY ARE BOTH UNBIBLICAL AND NON-BIBLICAL. THEY ARE NOT IN THE BIBLE.
SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT IN THE BIBLE WHETHER EXPLICITLY OR IMPLICITLY. WALANG-WALA.
ANG SOLA SCRIPTURA AY MAJOR DOCTRINE... DAPAT EXPLICIT YAN. KASO WALA TALAGA.
[The Bible is not merely a diary, but the texts are inspired by God.]
THE TEXTS ARE INSPIRED BY GOD BUT GOD DIDN'T SAY THAT THE TEXT ARE THE ONLY INSPIRED BY HIM. BECAUSE THE CHURCH IS ALSO INSPIRED AND THE APOSTLES WERE ALSO INSPIRED BY GOD. THE BREATH OF GOD IS NOT GIVEN TO THE BIBLE ALONE.
-
[2. Again, believing in Sola Scriptura does not go against the traditions and even the apostles being entrusted with the work as long as the traditions and the preachings of the apostles are in accordance to God's will which we should expect such important things to be written in the Bible.]
BELIEVING IN SOLA SCRIPTURA IS UNBIBLICAL AND THEREFORE IT IS ANTI-BIBLE AND ANTI-TRADITION. SINCE THE APOSTLES DIDN'T TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA THEN IT MUST BE REJECTED BY ALL CHRISTIANS.
GOD DIDN'T WILL SOLA SCRIPTURA, OTHERWISE HE SHOULD HAVE INSPIRED THE APOSTLES TO WRITE IT EXPLICITLY IN THE BIBLE.
[Remember, the scripture came after and not before.]
THAT IS WHY IT IS ERRONEOUS TO TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA. BECAUSE SACRED TRADITION EXISTED WITHOUT THE SCRIPTURA BUT THE SCRIPTURA NEVER EXISTED WITHOUT TRADITION. THUS, IT IS HERETICAL AND ILLOGICAL AND UNBIBLICAL TO TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA. HE, HE, HE...
[Sola Scriptura is applicable to us,]
IT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO EVERY CHRISTIAN WHO TRULY BELIEVE AND OBEY THE BIBLE BECAUSE THE BIBLE DOESN'T TEACH SOLAS SCRIPTURA BUT MERELY INVENTED BY MARTIN LUTHER. FOLLOWING SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES ONE A FOLLOWER OF LUTHER AND NOT OF CHRIST. FOLLOW CHRIST, FOLLOW THE BIBLE. REJECT SOLA SCRIPTURA.
[but not much to the apostles, because it was not written yet when they were preaching in the early years.]
THE APOSTLES DIDN'T TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA BECAUSE THE LORD DIDN'T TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA. THEY ALSO DIDN'T WRITE ABOUT SOLA SCRIPTURA WHEN THEY WROTE THE BIBLE. SO, SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AT ALL.
-
[3. If traditions are in the Bible--since we both agree they were practiced or believed even before they were written--then the traditions and the scriptures are actually not contradicting each other.]
SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT IN THE BIBLE AND IT IS ANTI-TRADITION. THAT IS WHY IT MUST BE REJECTED.
OUR FORMULA IS CORRECT AND IF IT IS FOLLOWED THEN THERE IS NO PROBLEM: BIBLE + SACRED TRADITION. HE, HE, HE.... YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT TRADITION IS PRIOR TO THE BIBLE AND THEY ARE BOTH BELIEVED AND PRACTICED. HE, HE, HE... SO WHY DID YOU SEPARATE THEM BY TEACHING SOLA SCRIPTURA? IT SHOULD BE BIBLE + SACRED TRADITION OR VICE-VERSA.
SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT IN THE BIBLE AND NOT IN SACRED TRADITION. IT IS DEMONIC.
[That's why Sola Scriptura does not say "abolish the traditions", the scripture is in fact a written account of when these traditions were started and why such tradition should be maintained.]
THAT IS STUPID. SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES SAY "ABOLISH THE TRADITIONS". BECAUSE IT SAYS BIBLE ALONE. IF BIBLE ALONE THEN IT REJECTS TRADITIONS.
I AM AMAZED BY YOUR CAPACITY TO LIE AND YOUR DEEP SHAMELESSNESS FOR STUPIDITY. YOU CAN LIE THROUGH YOUR TEETH. ARE YOU IGNORANT OF THE HISTORICAL DEBATE BETWEEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE REFORMERS ABOUT THE ISSUE? SOLA SCRIPTURA WAS FORMULATED BY MARTIN LUTHER TO REJECT SACRED TRADITIONS AND CHURCH AUTHORITY.
-
[Do not force that Sola Scriptura cannot accept traditions.]
THEN, REMOVE THE 'SOLA'. UNLESS YOU REMOVE THE TERM 'ALONE' WITH YOUR SCRIPTURA THEN SOLA SCRIPTURA CANNOT ACCEPT TRADITIONS. I AM NOT THE ONE WHO REJECTS TRADITIONS WITH SCRIPTURES BECAUSE OUR DOCTRINE IS BIBLE + SACRED TRADITIONS. IT IS YOU. YOUR DOCTRINE IS SOLA SCRIPTURA. THAT IS DEMONIC. IT REJECTS TRADITIONS. OUR POSITION CONTAINED BOTH THE BIBLE AND THE TRADITIONS.
IF YOU WANT TO ACCEPT BOTH MALE AND FEMALES IN THE RESTROOM DON'T PUT A SIGN "WOMEN ONLY". IT MEANS THAT MALES OR MEN ARE NOT ALLOWED INSIDE. IF YOU WANT BOTH TO USE THE SAME RESTROOM BUT A SIGN: "FOR MEN AND WOMEN".
REMOVE THE DEMONIC "ONLY OR ALONE" IN YOUR DOCTRINE. CAN'T YOU NOT LEAVE THE WORD 'ALONE' ALONE? HE, HE, HE...
[You mentioned 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold THE TRADITIONS which ye have been taught, whether by WORD, or our EPISTLE." meaning traditions were taught in the Bible and much more allowed to be practiced.]
STUPID AGAIN. READ CAREFULLY DO NOT BE BLIND. IT MEANS THAT THE APOSTLES HAD HANDED ON THE TRADITIONS AND THESE TRADITIONS HAVE TWO FORMS:
1. The Oral Traditions [by word]
2. The Written Tradition or Bible [by epistles]
IT IS THE BIBLE THAT IS WITHIN TRADITION BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS A WRITTEN TRADITION.
[(For the phrase "by Word", see #6). How can Sola Scriptura not allow traditions when the traditions were written in the Scripture itself?]
ANOTHER STUPIDITY. SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT ALLOW ORAL TRADITION BECAUSE IT IT SAYS BIBLE ONLY.
THE BIBLE ALLOWS TRADITION THAT IS WHY THE BIBLE DIDN'T TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA. YOU ARE TEACHING SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES IT IS YOU AND YOUR FELLOW DEMONIC FOLLOWERS WHO ARE NOT ACCEPTING TRADITIONS.
THE BIBLE DOES NOT REJECT TRADITIONS BECAUSE THE BIBLE NEVER EVER TAUGHT AND DOES NOT CONTAINED SOLA SCRIPTURA. SINCE IT IS YOU WHO UPHELD SOLA SCRIPTURA THEN YOUR POSITION IS ANTI-TRADITION AND CONTRADICTORY TO THE BIBLE. HA, HA, HA...
I AM SURPRISED BY YOUR CAPACITY FOR STUPIDITY.
[Thus, it's not illogical to say Sola Scriptura accepts traditions that were written in the Bible, and of course it cannot accept traditions that contradict those written in the Bible.]
SOLA SCRIPTURA REJECTS TRADITIONS AND IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH TRADITIONS. THE BIBLE IS COMPATIBLE WITH TRADITIONS BECAUSE THE BIBLE DOES NOT EACH SOLA SCRIPTURA.
YOU ARE ANTI-TRADITIONS BECAUSE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA. YOUR CLAIM THAT YOU ACCEPT TRADITIONS IS A LIE AND ILLOGICAL BECAUSE YOUR DOCTRINE IS CONTRADICTORY. IF YOU WANT TO ACCEPT THE TRADITIONS THEN FOLLOW THE FORMULA: BIBLE + TRADITIONS.
HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL. STOP YOUR LIES AND DECEITS.
-
[4. Based on our conversation, it really makes me think that you may be referring to traditions that are not written in the Bible?]
HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE NOT ONLY STUPID BUT AN IDIOT. THE BIBLE SPEAKS OF THE TRADITIONS EITHER ORAL OR WRITTEN. WHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE BIBLE THAT ALL TRADITIONS ARE WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE?
WHO TAUGHT YOU THE DEMONIC IDEA THAT ALL TRADITIONS ARE WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE?
I WILL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF A HUMAN TRADITION, A TRADITION OF MAN, INVENTED BY MAN ONLY WHICH IS NOT IN THE BIBLE:
S-O-L-A S-C-R-I-P-T-U-R-A. = SOLA SCRIPTURA
THAT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE AND NEVER FOUND IN THE BIBLE. THEREFORE IT IS DEMONIC IN ORIGIN. IT IS INVENTED BY A HERETIC NAMED MARTIN LUTHER. HE, HE, HE...
[Since if the traditions are also in the Bible, then it makes no sense to separate them or even to say that "if it's Bible alone then we cannot have traditions" because the Scriptures writes about the traditions as well.]
SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT IN THE BIBLE AND NOT PART OF THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION. THUS, IT IS EVIL. HA, HA, HA...
[You keep saying that Sola Scriptura cannot go with traditions,]
I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE SAYING THAT. THE INVENTOR OF SOLA SCRIPTURA CLAIMS THAT. RESEARCH THE MEANING OF SOLA SCRIPTURA FOR LUTHER AND CALVIN. HE, HE, HE... ACTUALLY, YOU ARE THE ONLY SOLA SCRIPTURA ADHERENT WHOM I ENCOUNTER TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE TRADITIONS. HA, HA, HA...
[then those traditions must not be found in the Bible or are contradicting the Bible, making the traditions and the Scripture incompatible.]
THE TRADITIONS IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE BIBLE BECAUSE THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA. ONCE SOLA SCRIPTURA IS UPHELD THEN THE TRADITIONS ARE REJECTED AS WELL.
THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH THAT IF THE TRADITIONS IS NOT WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE THEN IT IS WRONG. THE BIBLE DIDN'T SAY THAT BECAUSE IT RESPECTS THE APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS.
SOLA SCRIPTURA IS ANTI-TRADITION AND ANTI-BIBLE.
[So do you think that the traditions are different from what is written in the Bible? In what sense?]
SOLA SCRIPTURA IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE IN THAT SENSE IT IS ANTI-BIBLE AND UNBIBLICAL. IT IS DEMONIC AND MERELY INVENTED BY A HERETIC NAMED MARTIN LUTHER. THUS, SOLA SCRIPTURA IS ANTI-BIBLE AND ANTI-TRADITION.
No comments:
Post a Comment