Saang talata sa biblia nakasulat na ang salita ng Dios binubuo ng 66 na libro?

[OrionPax]

FYI, the Church CHOSE and CANONIZED 73 books, NOT 66. And the criteria of which on how they chose CANNOT be FOUND in Scripture.

Dessa, its not about justifying traditions, its showing that Sola Scriptura needs to refer to OUTSIDE references or authorities to operate, which El Cid and I keep on repeating like a broken record...its SELF REFUTING

Again the Church did not 66 BOOKS, the 66 books were chosen by a heretic, NOT the Church


The Church (NOT BY INDIVIDUALS in their own personal capacity) guided by the Spirit (NOT Dessa's personal Spirit) chose the books, and NOT based on Scripture

FYI Pope Alexander CANNOT remove Corinthians because the Canon is CLOSED

and that's how christians fall in to the pit of dead letters and traditions because they have forgotten to consult the Spirit.

66 books were compiled because the church have sought the Spirit and the teaching fo the apostles as basis

again, the thread is lame because it wants to prove that truths can be found elsewhere besides the Bible, by disproving that 66 books is not the number of books in the Bible, when it is also not written in scripture that it is 73.

the title should have been, "saan nakasulat sa Bible na may bilang ng libro ang Bible"


it's like saying that Satanism can possibly have God's truths in their book, so long as it befits catholic tradition.
or Pope Alexander (Borgia) can choose to remove Corinthians to justify his lechery

[SmartDessa]

personal Spirit?
why the Spirit is both personal & corporate.

to this date the non-RC's have been in one Spirit with the Roman Catholic heretic you are referring to.
the DCs are just not "workable" in the light of the NT.

there is no gospel there, no Christ there, not even God's Economy

these 7 books are mere historical accounts, there is no life in these letters. You will not find God's breath in them.


if Borgia couldn't remove Corinthians then why not add 3 Corinthians? and attempt to justify the sins of the Roman church.

[OrionPax]

What if your personal "spirit" defies the Church's spirit? what gives?

A heretic is NOT part of the Church...dont you get it? so anything a heretic (in his personal capacity) decrees, it is UNAUTHORIZED and UNOFFICIAL...even bishops in their own "personal capacity' cannot make decrees or laws (faith and morals) unless with the Church's (Magisterium) approval

Your judgement of the DC stems from JEWISH and PROTESTANT issues...Dessa...admit its NOT YOU OWN study or analysis.

If you trust Judaism and Protestantism who are NOT authorities to Scripture in those Church councils.....fine with us..

Again...The canon is CLOSED....you cannot ADD or SUBTRACT anymore from the 73

and the ISSUE REMAINS...SOLA SCRIPTURA is SELF REFUTING

personal Spirit?
why the Spirit is both personal & corporate.

to this date the non-RC's have been in one Spirit with the Roman Catholic heretic you are referring to.
the DCs are just not "workable" in the light of the NT.

there is no gospel there, no Christ there, not even God's Economy

these 7 books are mere historical accounts, there is no life in these letters. You will not find God's breath in them.


if Borgia couldn't remove Corinthians then why not add 3 Corinthians? and attempt to justify the sins of the Roman church.

[SmartDessa]

What if your personal "spirit" defies the Church's spirit? what gives?

by church spirit do you mean the same spirit that degaraded the 6 churches in Revelations?

my dear, there is only one Spirit, a mingled spirit.

my spirit need not be one spirit with your denomination's spirit.

what makes us one is the Spirit of God, therefore we all need to be one with the Spirit.

your 7 DCs, are they one with Spirit? does it have something to do with God's Economy or does it only serve as historical source?

A heretic is NOT part of the Church...dont you get it? so anything a heretic (in his personal capacity) decrees, it is UNAUTHORIZED and UNOFFICIAL...even bishops in their own "personal capacity' cannot make decrees or laws (faith and morals) unless with the Church's (Magisterium) approva

you mean like the Lord Jesus, a heretic of God's religion for the Jews.

Your judgement of the DC stems from JEWISH and PROTESTANT issues...Dessa...admit its NOT YOU OWN study or analysis.

I have read some of the DCs, it was not living, it does not give life
the Word of God is life,they are not dead laws, subject to dead canons.

whether it be real, true or authentic, if there is no life, then what gives?

it's better to be wrong and living
than to be right but dead.

If you trust Judaism and Protestantism who are NOT authorities to Scripture in those Church councils.....fine with us..

God is the authority, carried out by the Lord Jesus, through the Spirit.

Again...The canon is CLOSED....you cannot ADD or SUBTRACT anymore from the 73

and the ISSUE REMAINS...SOLA SCRIPTURA is SELF REFUTING[/B]

closed canon?
seems like "canon" is somekind of a roman version of sola scriptura, you know, cannot add or remove rule, fixed number of books

I guess there's no difference between SS & canon.

[OrionPax]

Lets not go off topic....STILL, Sola Scriptura is SELF REFUTING. but to answer your confused mind

Church Spirit...the Spirit that will GUIDE the Church (not the ones mentioned in Revelations)

The Church is NOT a denomination, those who BROKE off from the Church (Prostestants, Restorianists, Sedevecantists) are those who belong to that naming convention

Again..do not use "secular" semantics in dealing with theological concept of the Church (Catholic or Orthodox in particular)

YOUR "spirit" (acting in a personal capacity) is NOT the Church's Spirit that will guide the Church as Christ promised

Plain and simple

by church spirit do you mean the same spirit that degaraded the 6 churches in Revelations?

my dear, there is only one Spirit, a mingled spirit.

my spirit need not be one spirit with your denomination's spirit.

what makes us one is the Spirit of God, therefore we all need to be one with the Spirit.

Not mine Dessa, the Church's DCs. I did not chose them nor i am authorized by the Church (thru guidance of the Spirit) to include them in the canon.

Yes..the Jews WHO DENIED CHRIST

If you think you are better with what the councils did (as a group authorized by Apostolic authority) with regards to the DC, so be it..

Again..mere reading does not tell you anything, are you sure you were objective? what criteria did you use? what authority gives you that right to dissent? YOUR Spirit? Protestant or Jewish docu's that abhor the DCs?

your 7 DCs, are they one with Spirit? does it have something to do with God's Economy or does it only serve as historical source?

The difference was, Jesus was prophesied in the OT, the Lord of Lords, the King of Kings, Mighty God, Emmanuel and the Messiah...which was FULFILLED in the NT

and yet you consider Martin Luther, Ellen White, Joseph Smith or David Koresh in the same level of that of Jesus?

Sheesh...you call Jesus Lord but you put them in the same level of mere mortals who defied the Church that Christ Himself established?

you mean like the Lord Jesus, a heretic of God's religion for the Jews.

Have you read the DCs in Greek? do you have the same level of cultural, theological, contextual tools the Church had in the 4th CE when the included them in the Canon

If you are...ikaw na!

I have read some of the DCs, it was not living, it does not give life
the Word of God is life,they are not dead laws, subject to dead canons.

whether it be real, true or authentic, if there is no life, then what gives?

it's better to be wrong and living
than to be right but dead.

God is the authority, Jesus gave His Apostles authority (powers to loose and bind, keys), and the Spirit to guide His Church

You are NOT the Church, Dessa

Unless you claim your Spirit > than that of the Church

God is the authority, carried out by the Lord Jesus, through the Spirit.

Canon and SS?

One is a set of canonized books while the other is a Protestant DOCTRINE

Magkaiba yan

Sola Scriptura (hypocritcally claims everything is in Scripture) but still there are 10,000++ denominations which have different takes on the Bible, refer to pastors, refer to other religions, refer to customary beliefs, practice Sunday school or worship, celebrate Xmas and Easter, etc

closed canon?
seems like "canon" is somekind of a roman version of sola scriptura, you know, cannot add or remove rule, fixed number of books

I guess there's no difference between SS & canon.

[SmartDessa]

Lets not go off topic....STILL, Sola Scriptura is SELF REFUTING. but to answer your confused mind

you've made your point (and Elcid), and I don't have a problem with that.

Scripture only, without the Spirit's guidance is definitely dead.

Church Spirit...the Spirit that will GUIDE the Church (not the ones mentioned in Revelations)

are you implying that the seven churches in Revelations are not the church??

oh dear...

The Church is NOT a denomination, those who BROKE off from the Church (Prostestants, Restorianists, Sedevecantists) are those who belong to that naming convention

of course, the Catholic church is not a denomination, the ROMAN Catholic church, she is the mother of divisions.

Again..do not use "secular" semantics in dealing with theological concept of the Church (Catholic or Orthodox in particular)
YOUR "spirit" (acting in a personal capacity) is NOT the Church's Spirit that will guide the Church as Christ promised
Plain and simple
[/B]

There is only one Spirit, and our spirit is mingled with this Spirit.
this Spirit is the One who comforts and guides the churches, He resides in every christian, regardless of affiliation.
The Spirit also guides us to the vision of God's move on earth
The vision was in the early stages of the Roman church, but because of degradation and apostasy, was lost, the vision was recovered in Martin Luther, and then lost again....but we had numerous christians who saw the vision again, Madam Guiyon (which you consider heretic), count Zinzendorf, JN Darby, DL Moody, M Barber, W Nee, W Lee etc...

all of these people had one thing in common. The Spirit. and His Word.

the Spirit mingled with our spirit. this shows that there is only One Spirit.
if we all fasten ourselves, our spirits with the Spirit, then your spirit, my spirit, all the spirit of the members of the church is THE Spirit.

there were no dogma, canons and laws..

Not mine Dessa, the Church's DCs. I did not chose them nor i am authorized by the Church (thru guidance of the Spirit) to include them in the canon.

Yes..the Jews WHO DENIED CHRIST

If you think you are better with what the councils did (as a group authorized by Apostolic authority) with regards to the DC, so be it..

Again..mere reading does not tell you anything, are you sure you were objective? what criteria did you use? what authority gives you that right to dissent? YOUR Spirit? Protestant or Jewish docu's that abhor the DCs?

but arent you a member of the church? so obviously, it's your DCs

the authority in the church is the Spirit, if you are One with the Spirit, then you also have the authority.

authority is very hard to handle and delicate, that is why maturity in the Spirit is also needed apart from being One with the Spirit.

the christians who went before me, and who are more mature in Spirit, taught us to not just follow what they teach, but to learn by ourselves by contacting the Lord when discerning things.

I think in your case, your argument is one of authority, just because Borgia said this is right, then this is right.

[B]
The difference was, Jesus was prophesied in the OT, the Lord of Lords, the King of Kings, Mighty God, Emmanuel and the Messiah...which was FULFILLED in the NT

and yet you consider Martin Luther, Ellen White, Joseph Smith or David Koresh in the same level of that of Jesus?

Sheesh...you call Jesus Lord but you put them in the same level of mere mortals who defied the Church that Christ Himself established?

I never said that any person is at the same level with Jesus Christ.
you on the other hand equate the pope as Jesus on earth.

Have you read the DCs in Greek? do you have the same level of cultural, theological, contextual tools the Church had in the 4th CE when the included them in the Canon

If you are...ikaw na!

have you?

is it not more prudent to not believe what you have not read, than to believe in them, just because someone told you you have to.

for the record, I am still studying the DCs and trying to look for a very good reason why the RCs included them, for the sake of the christians in the RC. but for now, my first impression is that they are a bunch of historical accounts that were forced in to fill the long gap from Malachi to Matthew.

God is the authority, Jesus gave His Apostles authority (powers to loose and bind, keys), and the Spirit to guide His Church

You are NOT the Church, Dessa

we are the church

Unless you claim your Spirit > than that of the Church

there is only One Spirit.

Canon and SS?

One is a set of canonized books while the other is a Protestant DOCTRINE

Magkaiba yan

doesn't matter, the idea is still the same.

Sola Scriptura (hypocritcally claims everything is in Scripture) but still there are 10,000++ denominations which have different takes on the Bible, refer to pastors, refer to other religions, refer to customary beliefs, practice Sunday school or worship, celebrate Xmas and Easter, etc

[/quote]

you said the 73 is a closed canon

now tell me, other than the 73, is there a possibility to have a 74th?

[ElCid]

you've made your point (and Elcid), and I don't have a problem with that.

We think you do if you still insist on Sola Scriptura.

Scripture only, without the Spirit's guidance is definitely dead.

The guidance of the Holy Spirit was given to the apostles, their successors and to the church.

are you implying that the seven churches in Revelations are not the church??

oh dear...

Are you implying that the Revelations are Literal? oh dear

of course, the Catholic church is not a denomination, the ROMAN Catholic church, she is the mother of divisions.

You better get your history right. The Catholic Church was always united. It was only during the advent of your idols like Luther that the church became divided as they continue to do now among protestants and evangelicals.

There is only one Spirit, and our spirit is mingled with this Spirit.
this Spirit is the One who comforts and guides the churches, He resides in every christian, regardless of affiliation.
The Spirit also guides us to the vision of God's move on earth
The vision was in the early stages of the Roman church, but because of degradation and apostasy, was lost, the vision was recovered in Martin Luther, and then lost again....but we had numerous christians who saw the vision again, Madam Guiyon (which you consider heretic), count Zinzendorf, JN Darby, DL Moody, M Barber, W Nee, W Lee etc...

Christ promised that the very gates of hell will never prevail against the church and that the Holy Spirit will always guide it until the end of time. If you say otherwise then you make Christ the Son of God a liar. And if such is the case for the Roman Church whom you say was guided by the Spirit during the early stages - what guarantee do you have that your 'christians' will continue to have this guidance when even now they don't even agree among themselves?

all of these people had one thing in common. The Spirit. and His Word.

the Spirit mingled with our spirit. this shows that there is only One Spirit.
if we all fasten ourselves, our spirits with the Spirit, then your spirit, my spirit, all the spirit of the members of the church is THE Spirit.

there were no dogma, canons and laws..

If they don't have dogma then they don't have any teaching. If they don't have teaching then these people are useless.

but arent you a member of the church? so obviously, it's your DCs

the authority in the church is the Spirit, if you are One with the Spirit, then you also have the authority.

authority is very hard to handle and delicate, that is why maturity in the Spirit is also needed apart from being One with the Spirit.

the christians who went before me, and who are more mature in Spirit, taught us to not just follow what they teach, but to learn by ourselves by contacting the Lord when discerning things.

I think in your case, your argument is one of authority, just because Borgia said this is right, then this is right.

I never said that any person is at the same level with Jesus Christ.
you on the other hand equate the pope as Jesus on earth.

have you?

is it not more prudent to not believe what you have not read, than to believe in them, just because someone told you you have to.

for the record, I am still studying the DCs and trying to look for a very good reason why the RCs included them, for the sake of the christians in the RC. but for now, my first impression is that they are a bunch of historical accounts that were forced in to fill the long gap from Malachi to Matthew.

we are the church

there is only One Spirit.

doesn't matter, the idea is still the same.

you said the 73 is a closed canon

now tell me, other than the 73, is there a possibility to have a 74th?

For someone who claims that one can practice sola scriptura, I don't see you quoting from scripture to defend your position.

However, you admitted that we are correct:

you've made your point (and Elcid), and I don't have a problem with that.

You can't practice Sola Scriptura since it REFUTES ITSELF so LUTHER and all is ilk WAS AND IS WRONG. If you say that all doctrine should come and could be derived from scripture then it would be very easy to derive the teaching of Sola Scriptura itself from scripture and which book should be classified as theopneustos or inspired and hence should be trusted as the innerant word of God. But can you tell me how your 66 book bible was derived from Scripture? From what verse were you able to cull that number and name of the book from? From which apostle came the information that the N.T. would be 27 books and the O.T. 39? Wala.

So lahat kayong sola scriptura practitioner - pinaglololoko niyo lang mga tao. Unfortunately, ganun lang yun - you substitute your own words for that of the church and claim it comes from scripture. Pero look at how you reason - I don't see even a single verse from you while you were defending your position. Puro OPINION mo lang yan unfortunately which runs counter to your position - SOLA SCRIPTURA.

At kayo yung mga apostate since you don't know what you people are talking about and what you teach is self refuting and therefore a lie. Only Satan does that since he is the Father of LIES.

[SmartDessa]

nuff said.

I wonder, do you have any teachings in the RC that is completely UN-biblical.

[ElCid]

nuff said.

I wonder, do you have any teachings in the RC that is completely UN-biblical.

The canon of scripture

[SmartDessa]

^what else?.

I thought canon is not considered as doctrine? please confirm.

[ElCid]

^what else?.

Make another thread about that.

I thought canon is not considered as doctrine? please confirm.

I believe that the council of Trent in its fourth session in the year 1546 made a definitive statement regarding the centuries old catholic belief and practice regarding the canon of scripture. It is of course catholic doctrine.

[SmartDessa]

tell that to OrionPax

Canon and SS?

One is a set of canonized books while the other is a Protestant DOCTRINE

Magkaiba yan

so the canon of scriptures states that there are no more books to add or remove in the 73 canon books.
is that correct?

[ElCid]

tell that to OrionPax

You just didn't understand what he said. Canon is the list/set of the canonized books and SS (Sola Scriptura) is what he called a protestant doctrine. There is nothing in his statement which denies that the 73 book canon of scripture is not catholic doctrine.

so the canon of scriptures states that there are no more books to add or remove in the 73 canon books.
is that correct?

Yes of course. But it doesn't mean that we can only derive teachings from the 73 books. Catholic doctrine is derived from the teaching authority of the church given by Christ through the Holy Spirit culled from early church/apostolic tradition and scripture.

[SmartDessa]

You just didn't understand what he said. Canon is the list/set of the canonized books and SS (Sola Scriptura) is what he called a protestant doctrine. There is nothing in his statement which denies that the 73 book canon of scripture is not catholic doctrine.

so also, there's nothing wrong to say that the canon is similar to the Sola Scriptura because of the restriction of adding and subtracting books.

Yes of course. But it doesn't mean that we can only derive teachings from the 73 books. Catholic doctrine is derived from the teaching authority of the church given by Christ through the Holy Spirit culled from early church/apostolic tradition and scripture.

does the authority given by Christ, through the Holy Spirit, includes invention of teachings and doctrines exclusive from the scriptures and the Lord's teachings?

[ElCid]

so also, there's nothing wrong to say that the canon is similar to the Sola Scriptura because of the restriction of adding and subtracting books.

There is nothing in Sola Scriptura which determines which book belongs to scripture in the first place - how can you even dare say that there is restriction of adding and subtracting from something you do not know? lolz. You have subtracted books actually from the 73 book canon based on Luther's assessment and the other reformers - how do you then verify using scriptures and the principle of SS if what they did is correct? See how useless and self refuting Sola Scriptura really is?

does the authority given by Christ, through the Holy Spirit, includes invention of teachings and doctrines exclusive from the scriptures and the Lord's teachings?

Again you have the wrong assumption that doctrine is exclusively revealed in scriptures alone - we have already refuted that. We have made our point and you have already agreed that such an assumption is false.

There are doctrines that can't be found in scriptures i.e. the canon of scriptures. The fullness of doctrine therefore can be found in both oral and written tradition whose custodian is the church's teaching authority.

[tomenjeri]

ay! papano po kung nagkamali po ang nagkanon ng Biblya katulad po ng pagkakamali po ng Papa sa Limbo?

[SmartDessa]

There is nothing in Sola Scriptura which determines which book belongs to scripture in the first place - how can you even dare say that there is restriction of adding and subtracting from something you do not know? lolz. You have subtracted books actually from the 73 book canon based on Luther's assessment and the other reformers - how do you then verify using scriptures and the principle of SS if what they did is correct? See how useless and self refuting Sola Scriptura really is?

true that Sola scriptura does not determine which books to include or not because that's not what sola scriptura is for.
in fact, I do believe that adding or subtracting books from the canon will not in anyway break the rules of sola scriptura.
that is why, your heretic Luther, made a few adjustments on the composition of the Bible.

the point of sola scriptura is to find all teachings and doctrines in the scriptures, exclusively. which follows that all scriptures should not in anyway contradict, directly or indierctly from each other.

66 books were named, and so far, there was none other book that qualifies to be included in the canon. that is why it was conveniently agreed that there will no longer be another, or any one already included that can be removed.

Therefore, you cannot force sola scripturalists to produce a source in the scriptures that 66 books is the final and only books to bear authority over the christian faith.

Again you have the wrong assumption that doctrine is exclusively revealed in scriptures alone - we have already refuted that. We have made our point and you have already agreed that such an assumption is false.

by scripture alone, without the guidance of the HS, is what I agreed wrong.

on a restrictive point of view, doctrine should only be found in thes scripture alone.
but on a more practical point of view, teachings, practice, guidance, can be found outside of scripture, BUT it should not in anyway, directly, or indirectly contradict to scriptures AND should relate to scriptures.
I believe SS have both of these views.

There are doctrines that can't be found in scriptures i.e. the canon of scriptures. The fullness of doctrine therefore can be found in both oral and written tradition whose custodian is the church's teaching authority.

tradition is fine, but if it contradicts scripture or can be found related to what is written in the scriptures.

personally, I don't follow tradition not because it is either in or not in the scriptures
but because it is not necessary.

why should I celebrate christmas if I can always rejoice in the Lord's incarnation, everyday.

[ElCid]

true that Sola scriptura does not determine which books to include or not because that's not what sola scriptura is for.

Then you admit that it is self refuting and a blatant lie. The number of books and which books to include in scripture is also a primary doctrine. If you cannot derive that from scripture alone then the very premise on which sola scriptura is built upon crumbles: That the bible is the ONLY INSPIRED, FINAL, AND THE HIGHEST authority in matters of faith and doctrine. If you can't even determine which composes scripture by using the principle of SS then isn't it quite obvious that it doesn't stand by its very own definition and hence is self refuting? There is no way out dess. Try again.

in fact, I do believe that adding or subtracting books from the canon will not in anyway break the rules of sola scriptura.

Lols. You are a very funny lady Dess. If you can take away and add books from scripture and still say that you aren't breaking the rules of Sola Scriptura is stretching credulity too much. So you mean to say that the book of Genesis alone may be used as the only rule of faith in matters of faith and doctrine? Lols. Is the book of Genesis therefore sufficient?

that is why, your heretic Luther, made a few adjustments on the composition of the Bible.

Again another funny assumption from lady dess. How can scripture be final and sufficient if Luther and anyone of you can make 'adjustments' on the composition of the bible unilaterally whimsically and arbitrarily?

the point of sola scriptura is to find all teachings and doctrines in the scriptures, exclusively.

Unfortunately, how can you do that if you can't find the doctrine and teaching which books belong and composes scripture? Only the bible is inspired according to SS and everything you do therefore should be in scripture or else it would be ERRONEOUS.

which follows that all scriptures should not in anyway contradict, directly or indierctly from each other.

Nax lols. So who would decide that? You? Luther? Soriano?

66 books were named, and so far, there was none other book that qualifies to be included in the canon. that is why it was conveniently agreed that there will no longer be another, or any one already included that can be removed.

Were named by whom? And how can you even dare say that there was none other book that qualifies to be included in the canon? On who or what authority do you dare say that? Isn't it that according to SS that only SCRIPTURE IS THE FINAL AND ONLY AUTHORITY? Aren't you again shooting yourself in the foot?

Therefore, you cannot force sola scripturalists to produce a source in the scriptures that 66 books is the final and only books to bear authority over the christian faith.

Because you are hypocrites. You preach one thing but fail to adhere by your own teachings. And we aren't forcing you - have just demonstrated that your primary doctrine is self refuting since you cannot find in scripture the doctrine that the bible is composed of the same 66 books which you now hold as God's word.

by scripture alone, without the guidance of the HS, is what I agreed wrong.

Backread Ms. Dess. Again your are backtracking from what you've said.

on a restrictive point of view, doctrine should only be found in thes scripture alone.

Lols. Wow she's making a hairline distinction. Would she succeed? Of course not! Even that isn't in scripture.

but on a more practical point of view, teachings, practice, guidance, can be found outside of scripture, BUT it should not in anyway, directly, or indirectly contradict to scriptures AND should relate to scriptures.
I believe SS have both of these views.

Yeah I believe so too since what you've said is self refuting. One one hand you say doctrine should be in scripture alone and on the other it can also be found outside of scripture lols. How can you even sleep at night when you know you are lying to your own self? And if SS has those views then it is indeed SELF REFUTING.

tradition is fine, but if it contradicts scripture or can be found related to what is written in the scriptures.

The problem is you can't identify scripture without tradition. Isn't that right Ms. Dess? lols.

personally, I don't follow tradition not because it is either in or not in the scriptures but because it is not necessary.

We know that you don't follow anything - the bible or tradition. You just make the rules as you go along just like what you are doing right now. You haven't even quoted a single verse in scripture to prove your point and you even dare say that you practice SS?

why should I celebrate christmas if I can always rejoice in the Lord's incarnation, everyday.

And who is asking about christmas in this thread? lolz.

[SmartDessa]

Then you admit that it is self refuting and a blatant lie. The number of books and which books to include in scripture is also a primary doctrine. If you cannot derive that from scripture alone then the very premise on which sola scriptura is built upon crumbles: That the bible is the ONLY INSPIRED, FINAL, AND THE HIGHEST authority in matters of faith and doctrine. If you can't even determine which composes scripture by using the principle of SS then isn't it quite obvious that it doesn't stand by its very own definition and hence is self refuting? There is no way out dess. Try again.

why is it necessary for me to admit that sola scriptura is self refuting on the basis of canonization? when sola scriptura is not (directly) related to the composition of books.

indeed, SS takes the Bible as the ONLY inspired, final, and highest authority, what you are missing is that whether the Bible is 66, or 73 books, SS can still take effect, because SS does not say the Bible is 66 books explicitly. SS can only contribute as far as to the way and method of arriving at a composition, and that is like I said, should not be contradicting both in facts and in purpose. So saying that non-catholics do not know "the way" to identify which book are they, is a blatant lie.

again, How can you say that SS is self refuting on the number of books (66), when its purpose is not to dictate a number of books?
I just realized that you are, from the very start, hitting a strawman

Lols. You are a very funny lady Dess. If you can take away and add books from scripture and still say that you aren't breaking the rules of Sola Scriptura is stretching credulity too much. So you mean to say that the book of Genesis alone may be used as the only rule of faith in matters of faith and doctrine? Lols. Is the book of Genesis therefore sufficient?

Luther did that, he even tried to remove (or have removed) some books like Revelation, but on basis of SS, christians preserved those books in the canon.

if Genesis was the only book revealed to us by God, then it is the only sufficient book, but then again, the Lord revealed His economy in 66 books.
does the DCs reveal, atleast a pinch, of God's economy?

Again another funny assumption from lady dess. How can scripture be final and sufficient if Luther and anyone of you can make 'adjustments' on the composition of the bible unilaterally whimsically and arbitrarily?

and that is why, we are stucked with 66.
the Word of God is sufficient and final.

if we discover a 67th book and have been attested, cross checked both with the Spirit and the other books.

the we may possibly have a 67 books of the Bible, which is God's Word, and which is Final and sufficient.

you see, prots follow a strict 66 books canon because they believe that the 66 books are God's Word, and they are well sufficient and Final
RCathoics follow a strict 73 books, because their priests told them. And I am assuming that they do not believe that God's Word is final and sufficient, the pope's word should also be taken equally to God's Word.

Unfortunately, how can you do that if you can't find the doctrine and teaching which books belong and composes scripture? Only the bible is inspired according to SS and everything you do therefore should be in scripture or else it would be ERRONEOUS.

like I said, even in our past conversation in this same thread.
SS does not say which books should be included, but it does tell us HOW the to identfiy which books are inspired or not.

now don't ask me how the book/books where the doctrine on HOW to identify a which books, were chosen.
it's like asking who created God, or where did God came from?

We have Jesus Christ mentioning the Law, the prophets, and the psalms, and He considered them as scripture.
so we take into consideration the Jewish Canon, and we start from there to find out which NT is a reality of the OT.

oh wait, I believe the DCs aren't canon to the Jewish Scripture, if I am not mistaken...

Nax lols. So who would decide that? You? Luther? Soriano?

the same HS who guided the early church fathers.

Soriano? i abhor that person's testimony and method of preaching.

Were named by whom? And how can you even dare say that there was none other book that qualifies to be included in the canon? On who or what authority do you dare say that? Isn't it that according to SS that only SCRIPTURE IS THE FINAL AND ONLY AUTHORITY? Aren't you again shooting yourself in the foot?

by the church/christians, guided by the Spirit's authority.

Because you are hypocrites. You preach one thing but fail to adhere by your own teachings. And we aren't forcing you - have just demonstrated that your primary doctrine is self refuting since you cannot find in scripture the doctrine that the bible is composed of the same 66 books which you now hold as God's word.

I have explained already that the "one thing" and "their own teaching" does not in anyway go against each other.
which part don't you get?

again SS is does NOT say 66 books
the christians using SS arrived at 66 books.

Backread Ms. Dess. Again your are backtracking from what you've said.

point/quote it.

Lols. Wow she's making a hairline distinction. Would she succeed? Of course not! Even that isn't in scripture.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

and for sufficiency:

2 Tim 3:16,17
All scripture [is] given by
inspiration of God, and [is]
profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may
be perfect, throughly furnished
unto all good works.

http://www.equip.org/articles/a-defe...ola-scriptura/

Yeah I believe so too since what you've said is self refuting. One one hand you say doctrine should be in scripture alone and on the other it can also be found outside of scripture lols. How can you even sleep at night when you know you are lying to your own self? And if SS has those views then it is indeed SELF REFUTING.

well your identifed premises are unreliable if not wrong. That is why it is self refuting.
you have shot an arrow, and made circles around where it landed.

The problem is you can't identify scripture without tradition. Isn't that right Ms. Dess? lols.

nope, the prblem is that you have identified a bunch of traditions which the scripture could not identify

lols.

We know that you don't follow anything - the bible or tradition. You just make the rules as you go along just like what you are doing right now. You haven't even quoted a single verse in scripture to prove your point and you even dare say that you practice SS?

first, your description of SS is not what I practice, because you have re-engineered SS doctrine to compliment your arguments
second, the basic principle of SS is what I adhere to, since it is scriptural.

lastly, I follow the Bible, I don't need tradition. so please stop putting words in my mouth.

And who is asking about christmas in this thread? lolz.

we are talking about traditions, are we not?

[SmartDessa]

removed .