Daniel P. Barron

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Wednesday, July 3, 2019 

Daniel: "There should be no guilt over having sex with a spouse."
Haras: Even something that wastes a man's seed?
Daniel: It's not wrong to "waste seed."
Haras: What verse in the Bible supports this, eh?
Daniel: It's on you to show where it forbids such a thing.
Haras: Well, you're the biblical expert here.
Daniel: I know there is no such prohibition, but you are welcome to try to find it.
Haras: Where in the Bible does it say it is the sole authority?
Daniel: Proverbs 30:

5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

Haras: Neither of those state that the Bible is the only authority for doctrine.
Daniel: "do not add to His words"
Haras: So you're using something which predates the existence of the Bible to prove sola scriptura. i This is why people laugh at you.
Daniel: Nothing predates the Bible, which is God.
Haras: Friend, nowhere does the Bible say which books belong in it nor that it is the only authority. God is not the Bible.
Daniel: Yes He is.
Haras: It is simply a collection of books that are His inspired word. You are an idolater if you pray to and worship your Bible.
Daniel: "Are you saying that you worship the Bible?"
Haras: Ah yes, more links. The ultimate workaround
Daniel: This topic has been covered and published; if you have something new to add, feel free, preferably as a comment to the article.
Haras: I'm not interested in such.
Daniel: Ah, the "not interested" workaround. ii Anyway, there is scripture that we both agree is scripture, and that you deny.
Haras: Denying scripture? That is rich coming from someone who doesn't hold the full truth.
Daniel: You and your false church that you suppose has authority to make extra-biblical doctrine.
Haras: Your Bible is missing the fullness of the truth.
Daniel: Let's focus on the not missing parts.
Haras: Do not run around saying that I'm lost when you yourself have a bastardized collection of the Bible.
Daniel: You agree that Isaiah should be part of the Bible?
Haras: I see no reason for it to not be in there, alongside the deuterocanonical books. The Church Fathers helped compile the Bible and I see no reason to doubt their intentions. God helped them, as seen in some accounts.
Daniel: So then you agree with the prophet Isaiah that God creates bad (evil) Isaiah 45:

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Haras: God permits evil to happen.
Daniel: Or do you deny the truth that God creates evil? It says He "creates" it.
Haras: I'd point to Augustine's idea that anything that exists is good because God created it. Evil happens to draw us closer to Him.
Daniel: Well, that's clearly not true, as there are clearly bad/evil things in the world. So then, you do indeed deny scripture that we both agree is scripture.
Haras: Ok.
Daniel: And you want me to believe that your false church has authority to add to scripture?
Haras: You deny the fullness of the truth, so little value is there in your labeling of me as lost and denying of scripture.
Daniel: You deny a very specific verse.
Haras: Books such as Tobit were not questioned until Martin Luther existed.
Daniel: That's another subject.
Haras: Not really. You say I'm a liar and part of a false church for holding onto books that you deny because of Luther's actions.
Daniel: Scripture says "God creates evil" and Haras says "God doesn't create evil." This is very simple.
Haras: Ok. Did you ever study and attend churches other than A True Church?
Daniel: Yes, but again this is misdirection.
Haras: Which churches did you attend?
Daniel: It doesn't matter and it isn't germane to this discussion.
Haras: I see a fruitless discussion, so I'm not going to continue.
Daniel: hm, ok

  1. See "Paul didn't follow sola scriptura. Why should you?^

  2. Darwin: I think we have discussed this already, maybe? I would not press or argue their unwillingness to look to links. I think it's fine to reference them. But, if they are not willing to go there, you can briefly give the Scripture again, or whatever is appropriate. It just shouldn't be a point of contention. The only thing that should be contended is the Word (Jude 3).

    I'm willing to work with people's limitations when it comes to clicking links, but I had already gone over these things with this guy in particular. ^

3 Responses

  1. hezus

    You are correct Haras, everyone does laugh at him as he is truly lost.

  2. hezus

    Just like everyone laughs at Darwin.

  3. Now is your time to laugh.

Leave a Reply

Your criticism is welcome. Your name and website are optional. Some HTML tags are allowed.