Discussion on Sola Scriptura with Chris the Papist

From this post, a papist decided to speak up and I decided to find out whether he had any answers:
https://www.facebook.com/mark.kreslins/posts/10218452290755847

Chris Standley the Papist: Sola Scriptura fails.

ME: Not if it is properly understood. It is the only consistent epistemological and theological foundation.

PAPIST: Alan Maricle umm..not if it’s understood.

ME: The alternative is a system in which epistemology and theology are based on human reasoning. So no, it doesn't fail. The competition fails.

PAPIST: Alan Maricle ...to believe in Sola Scriptura is to believe something that none of the Church Fathers, doctors of the Faith, martyrs, councils, etc. believed. In short it is, in hindsight, saying those that founded the faith were wrong for 1500 years. The entire body of scripture was founded using something besides Sola Scriptura. The Apostles themselves did not utilize SS. St. Paul, commends those that cling to the traditions both written and oral etc. The truth is that while SS is better than nothing it “fails” because the Church is much more than the scriptures and SS can not present the whole of Orthodox faith.
But then again maybe the fathers of the faith (Jesus and the Apostles) were wrong. Or maybe we have to use scholasticism to “interpret” what they meant...(hyperbole).

ME: none of the Church Fathers
Peter, Paul, John, and Jesus are all Church Fathers.
Also you'd do well to read this. Your assertion is false.
Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume III: The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura.

saying those that founded the faith were wrong for 1500 years.
Some were, yes. Others weren't. And you're talking about people who ended up instituting the papacy and rampant idol worship. Your understanding of history is too simplistic.
And it doesn't change what I said about foundations. Maybe those people were indeed wrong.

The entire body of scripture was founded using something besides Sola Scriptura
An irrelevant statement.

commends those that cling to the traditions both written and oral etc.
Begs the question that those messages were not identical.

ME: Gonna need you to tell me what the ultimate authority is, if not God's revelation to mankind. Thanks in advance.

PAPIST: Alan Maricle it’s the Word of God. Period. But Sola Scriptura is not simply that. Even the Catechism teaches that the Magisterium is servant to the Word of God.
FYI: this debate has been ongoing for 500 years and none here will end it.
I officially tap out for reasons of personal sanity.
It’s like party affiliation...it’s psychology...humans have an innate need to be affirmed in what they believe. I have my “proof” and others have theirs. God’s Grace is sufficient. I simply have chosen to continue in the Faith of the founders of Christianity instead of the reformers. Instead of reading scholastics (theologians) maybe we all would do well to read from the fathers and founders themselves...
Earlychristianwritings.com

ME: What constitutes the Word of God and how do you know?

Even the Catechism teaches that the Magisterium is servant to the Word of God.
Hypocritically, for the Magisterium can neither consistently define what the Word of God is nor is subservient to it.

I simply have chosen to continue in the Faith of the founders of Christianity
Paul, Peter, John, and Jesus taught things the Roman church condemns and vice versa. You have done nothing of the sort; rather you have gone aside into novel perversions that God spits out.

PAPIST: Alan Maricle sorry to say you’ve proven my point.
God bless.

ME: Your point was on the one hand "we can't know", but on the other hand you said I was wrong and out of step with "the faith of the founders of Christianity".
A religion that leads you into hypocrisy and affirms you in it is one you should avoid. God seeks those who will worship Him in Spirit and in TRUTH.

PAPIST: Alan Maricle John 6:56
1 Cor 11:2
2 Thes 2:15
2 Thes 3:6
2 Tim 2:2
Papias, Irneaus, Eusebius, clement, Origen, Cyprian, Basil and all the martyrs and Saints of the early Church are who I will choose over Luther, Calvin and their successors...but that’s my choice. I respect yours too. But for me...
John 6:56

ME: None of those verses establish your position in any way. They are actually quite deadly to your Romish perversions.

ME: I don't choose Luther or Calvin, etc. I go with Peter, Paul, John, and Jesus. The astute reader will note that I have been consistently saying that from the beginning and that you are the one who mentioned irrelevant people like Luther.

PAPIST: Alan Maricle okie dokie. Do you at least thank the early Church for compiling and giving you the Bible you have at the councils before anything except Orthodoxy existed? Your view seems to forget who actually gave you the Bible and Western Civilization. But that’s beside the point. By “gave” I mean only that they were the instruments not the composer.

ME: If you mean modern Eastern Orthodoxy, that too is a strain containing numerous novel perversions of the faith once delivered to the saints.
The Councils to which you refer are irrelevant to the Bible. The Bible doesn't depend on them.
I thank everyone who stood firm on Scripture throughout history.
God gave me the Bible. I thank Him most of all, not the people who perverted the faith over time like Roman and Constantinopolitan religious hierarchs.

ME: Chris Standley
Please let me know how you know what the Word of God is.

PAPIST: Alan Maricle okie dokie.
Earlychristianwritings.com

ME: Cool. Irenaeus said that Jesus was crucified at an age older than 50.
Word of God or nah?

ME: "I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews...there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit."
--"Saint" Athanasius (Festal Letter 39:2-4, 39:7)

Different Canon of Scripture than modern Rome.
Word of God or nah?

ME: "Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture"
--Athanasius (De Synodis, 6)

SUFFICIENT ABOVE ALL THINGS is Scripture, he says.
Word of God or nah?

PAPIST: Biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a38.htm
How Old is Jesus According to Irenaeus? -- Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy, Spirituality

ME: What do you have to say about my other examples? Examples like these could be multiplied.
"'Early' 'Church' 'Fathers'" said all kinds of things, only some of which agree with the modern Roman position. I asked you what THE WORD OF GOD is and how you know, and you pointed me to a website that contains patristic writings. So what you're telling me is that you believe contradictory things are the Word of God.
The Roman position is hopelessly confused and is literally absurd and impossible. You should jettison it and believe the truth.

ME: "Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: 'The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.' Also the Lord, sending His apostles, commands that the nations should be baptized, and taught to observe all things which He commanded. If, therefore, it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed." - Cyprian (Letter 73:2)

ME: "For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)

ME: "we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings...And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all. And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?" - Macrina and Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection)

ME: All that stuff ^^^
Word of God or nah?
Chris Standley

PAPIST: Alan Maricle how many books are in the Bible?

PAPIST: crickets

ME: Chris Standley LOL "crickets", after I posted several paragraphs of material and you haven't interacted with any of it.
66 books are in the Bible.
Now your turn - how many books in the Bible? Special bonus points if you can tell me whether 1 Esdras is in the Bible, since the Council of Trent "passed over in silence" whether it is canonical.
https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-roman-catholic-canon-and-book-of.html
Shortcut to the end - you won't be able to tell me for sure how many books are in the Bible b/c even the Magisterium doesn't know. What's even more hilarious to me is that the Magisterium, being The Living Voice Of The Church®, could declare the Canon for sure with zero equivocation or vagueness, and they could declare it today.
The fact that they won't tells you all you need to know about how much they care about these matters. They don't think the Canon of Scripture question is important.
So, why do you think it is important?
You think it is important b/c deep down you know that it is essential to be able to distinguish what God said vs what He did not necessarily say. But that takes us back again to the question of what God's Word is, and it isn't "early Christian writings".

PAPIST: Alan Maricle why do you have 66?

ME: Because God breathed out 66 and no more and no less.
Why do you have __ books?
Oh wait, you don't know how many books there are in the Bible, do you?

PAPIST: Alan Maricle you stand on the shoulders of great men and when you survey the landscape of the past you point and say “look they messed this up or that up” and yet without them you never would have what you have. It’s quite ironic.

PAPIST: Alan Maricle y r u so angry? Is anger Godly in your Church?

PAPIST: Alan Maricle 73....there are 73 books in the Catholic Bible. When did the Church go wrong on the other 7? How do you know they are wrong? If they were wrong how do you know you are right?

ME: you stand on the shoulders of great men and when you survey the landscape of the past you point and say “look they messed this up or that up” and yet without them you never would have what you have.
I affirm that statement, yes.
But I'm not asking you whether these people were generally good and faithful. I'm asking you WHAT THE WORD OF GOD IS. And when we're talking about the Word of God, one single mistake or inconsistency is a disqualification. Only Scripture stands firm.

Is anger Godly in your Church?
Not sure why you capitalised "C"hurch.
Some anger is godly, sure. Witness Christ's anger multiple times in the New Testament for example.

there are 73 books in the Catholic Bible.
Why do you keep avoiding questions? Is avoiding questions godly in your Church?
1 Esdras - yes or no?
And how do you know there are 73?

When did the Church go wrong on the other 7?
First prove it's 7 additional books and I'll be happy to answer that question. 1 Esdras - yes or no?

PAPIST: Alan Maricle yes there are 73. Have a great life! God bless!

ME: 1 Esdras

ME: Have the courage to critically examine your beliefs.
You've signed over your brain to the whore of Rome when you should be trusting in Jesus. Please repent, Chris. You may not have another opportunity.

PAPIST: Alan Maricle your character is reflective of your heretical views. I won’t lower my standards and reciprocate your vitriol. May the Holy Spirit direct your path and hopefully that path will include the fullness of faith and truth of the only Church instituted by Christ and the apostles. Your presumption that I’ve not critically reviewed my beliefs is excusable. As for the whore of Rome comment...well I’m reminded of how Christ treated “whores” and I’ll ignore that vitriolic and ignorant slander. Some would say it’s better to die a whore than a heretic.

ME: I believe I am using the same level of "vitriol" that Jesus used toward the Pharisees and moneychangers and that Paul used toward the Judaisers. Probably less.
I encourage you not to gripe about "tone" and to critically examine the fact that you flat out do not have answers to my challenges. Your faith is on sinking sand, and I don't want you to be condemned.
Christ showed merciful compassion toward REPENTANT whores, not inveterate ones who lead people to become twice the son of hell that they are. Be neither a whore nor a heretic, and place your faith in the Christ of the Scriptures, being adopted into His family. Cease your rebellion against God.

PAPIST: Alan Maricle listen heretic...I’ve been nice. Your questions are petty and sophomoric to me. Your heart is hardened and you won’t accept the Truth. So I don’t cast my pearls before the swine...justify your sinful nature all you want to help you sleep at night but the fact is that it’s you not I who has a faith built on sand..my faith is built on the rock which is his one true Church...Orthodoxy that is the Catholic Church. You are like the prodigal son. You are the one in rebellion and you are the one that needs to do some intense reading because you do not have the faith of the fathers doctors martyrs of the early Church but rather a hodgepodge of tripe developed generations and centuries later in open rebellion to the faith that civilized the west. Don’t worry heretic; I’ll be blocking you so you won’t have to waste your heretical time on me. Good day.
Earlychristianwritings.com

ME: Your questions are petty and sophomoric to me
Then shouldn't they be easy to answer?

justify your sinful nature
I don't see how I've done that.