It is unbiblical The belief that the Bible is the sole rule of Christian theology

[metis]

the reason they were not selected was because during the first century, the 12 Apostles were alive and they were the only authority given by Christ to lay down his teachings. So while they were alive, only what they all agreed on was viewed as accurate teaching. But after the first century, when they had all died off, other christians began to promote their teachings and started circulating more and more literature among the congregations. Eventually, christians began noticing differences in teachings and the first major teaching which was noted as contradictory was the teaching that Jesus was God which came about in the late 2nd/early 3rd century.

So they all got together and had to make a decision on all these writings which were causing a bit of controversy. They chose to compile all the writings which were known and accepted by the 12 Apostles and they collected them into the canon. All other writings (things that had been rejected by the 12 apostles or the ones written after their time) were left out of the cannon.

Thats why we can completely trust the bible canon as it is with the 4 gospels, the letters of Paul, Peter, Jude, James and John. These were the original church teachings...these writings had the apostles stamp of approval.

Only partially true.

They worked with many different texts, including the ones not chosen, and they felt that the ones that could be linked back to the apostles through apostolic succession should be chosen. But note that 1. it was the church's decision on how to go about selecting the canon, and 2. that some books they were not too enthused about, especially Hebrews (unknown author) and Revelations (problems with authorship even though it says "John on Patmos", and also the issue of the "millennial reign"), and we know this from church records on the process.

Secondly, there's no evidence whatsoever that suggests that the apostles chose any text with the exception some of Paul's earlier letters. However, they were not referred to as "scripture"-- just that they were worthy of reading and should be followed.

No matter how one looks at it, it was the church that chose the canon and not the other way around.

 

[Wharton]

Jews and Protestants don't believe in praying for the dead."

Hmm. The eldest Jewish son prays for his dead parents everyday for 11 months. To pray for 12 months would mean they went to hell.

 

[Unification]

If you ignore videos like I do, I can tell you the criteria for discerning the books of the bible were:

• they had to be written in the Apostolic age.
• they could not conflict or contradict other writings
• they could not conflict or contradict Apostolic teaching or the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles (Tradition)
• there had to be a general acceptance of what was read in the churches as scripture.

There might be more but that's off the top of my head. Let me put it another way:

The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.
Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels.

We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries,

We then take that and together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, teaching authority, and, as a consequence of the last, infallibility.

Christ’s Church, to do what he said it would do, had to have the character of doctrinal infallibility.

We have thus taken purely historical material and concluded that a Church exists, namely, the Catholic Church, which is divinely protected against teaching doctrinal error. Now we are at the last premise of the argument.

This Catholic Church tells us the

(2)Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the
(1)Church is infallible.

Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—
(1)that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—
(2)that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

1) On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.
2) From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.
3) And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.
4) This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable),
5) and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired).

What I have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

Meditate on the Lord my friend, he has the only truth. Not any man, not any book, not any building.

 

[kepha31]

I'm not supporting sola scriptura. I was agreeing with the OP. As for the resurrection and such I've argued the same. But your contention that the inspiration of the bible can somehow be proven just does not work.

The bishops of the late 3rd century did not just make assumptions.

Jesus said "by their fruits you will recoginize them"

The bible was written by people who had the fruits of Gods holy spirit and who demonstrated Godly fear and behaved in a manner worthy of being called servants of God. On the other hand, the men who have since sat and wielded power over the christian religion have been murderers & plunderers who have the blood of millions on their hands with their wars and killing of fellow christians and people they accused of being heretics and witches and the like.

We are talking about sola scriptura. Exaggerated fundamentalist hate speech is a red herring. I'd be glad to discuss the myths and realities of medieval history, this is not the place.

Thats why the bible is above reproach and they are not. They have not acted according to the directions and commandments of Christ. They have not lived in harmony with Gods requirements. And the written word of God was never dependent on such people for its survival. In fact, many of those whom you call 'bishop' and 'pope' have shown great disregard for the bible and their fellow Christians... its not surprising that those who support the papal system likewise disregard Gods Word as the authority.

The Bible was preserved, compiled and proclaimed by Catholic bishops who put the books of the Bible together under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. If you refuse to accept historical facts, it's not my problem.

that is quite incorrect to say that. The scritpures were already circulating among christians before the church came into existence.
What you call 'the church' began as small groups of Christs followers who met in private homes and who preached the message of Gods kingdom throughout their towns and cities.

This theory is a half truth. Gnostic "scriptures" were circulating too, and there had to be an authority to reject them. "Christs followers who met in private homes" were subject to men trained by the Apostles, who in turn trained other men. If you don't believe there was a hierarchy then you don't believe the Bible.

The 'church' developed later, when ambitious men rose up above their christian brothers and seized control and began to rule over Christs disciples. They made themselves 'the church' as you call it.

That's what you have been taught. The "Church" was born at Pentacost. There have been administrative mistakes, there always will be, but the dominating dictator image of the Church is funnymentalist hate propaganda designed to fool ignorant people into buying stupid books and make lots of money, like Jackkk Chickkk. And your comment has nothing to do with the topic.

the reason they were not selected was because during the first century, the 12 Apostles were alive and they were the only authority given by Christ to lay down his teachings. So while they were alive, only what they all agreed on was viewed as accurate teaching. But after the first century, when they had all died off, other christians began to promote their teachings and started circulating more and more literature among the congregations. Eventually, christians began noticing differences in teachings and the first major teaching which was noted as contradictory was the teaching that Jesus was God which came about in the late 2nd/early 3rd century.

Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. By disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him.

Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.

So they all got together and had to make a decision on all these writings which were causing a bit of controversy. They chose to compile all the writings which were known and accepted by the 12 Apostles and they collected them into the canon. All other writings (things that had been rejected by the 12 apostles or the ones written after their time) were left out of the cannon.

That's true, but it was Catholic bishops that got together in the early 4th century, some 70 years after the Council of Nicae, for the final compilation and papal approval for 73 books of the Bible.

A Visual Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon
(all sources are Protestant)

 

[nazz]

The bishops of the late 3rd century did not just make assumptions.

Of course they did. And a lot of modern scholars disagree with their conclusions.

A Visual Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon
(all sources are Protestant)

So much for "infallibility"

 

[Unification]

The bishops of the late 3rd century did not just make assumptions.


We are talking about sola scriptura. Exaggerated fundamentalist hate speech is a red herring. I'd be glad to discuss the myths and realities of medieval history, this is not the place.



The Bible was preserved, compiled and proclaimed by Catholic bishops who put the books of the Bible together under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. If you refuse to accept historical facts, it's not my problem.


This theory is a half truth. Gnostic "scriptures" were circulating too, and there had to be an authority to reject them. "Christs followers who met in private homes" were subject to men trained by the Apostles, who in turn trained other men. If you don't believe there was a hierarchy then you don't believe the Bible.


That's what you have been taught. The "Church" was born at Pentacost. There have been administrative mistakes, there always will be, but the dominating dictator image of the Church is funnymentalist hate propaganda designed to fool ignorant people into buying stupid books and make lots of money, like Jackkk Chickkk. And your comment has nothing to do with the topic.


Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. By disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him.

Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.


That's true, but it was Catholic bishops that got together in the early 4th century, some 70 years after the Council of Nicae, for the final compilation and papal approval for 73 books of the Bible.

A Visual Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon
(all sources are Protestant)

Why not just put ones trust in the Lord who is within? Why all this trust in man and a book? The only truth that is true and is no mistake is from the living Lord. Or did He stop speaking to people in their lives because an Almighty God wants people to look in a book instead? The only way I can find my Lord is in a book... That sounds terrible. I didn't know I needed an education in God... How silly does that sound, an education of God? What's really troublesome is all the man doctrine junk being taught to people leading them straight in a ditch. Hear the Word of God, hear the Word of God ...they say. . . Then pay me. Let's stop exalting men and a book and scriptures over the true Word of God who speaks to people within who genuinely seek Him in private, and is truth. If one doesn't hear His voice within, one is not doing something right.

 

[sojourner]

Lol, It wasn't about the entire bible what I quoted was just about the 7 books included in the Catholic bible but excluded from the Protestant bibles.

None of the seven you mention are gospels. They were originally included in the canon; they weren't excluded until the Protestants came along in the late 1500s.

 

[sojourner]

Anything outside of His word are the words of men. There are no inspired men today, nor has there been since the last apostle died.

Then none of the gospels is "God's word," since they were all written "post-apostles."

When I was searching for the one true church, which Jesus purchased with His own blood, I tested many denominations' teachings by measuring them against the church I was reading about in the New Testament. I knew when I found one whose teachings and practices lined up with the NT church, I would have found the Lord's church.

So, IOW, you used a false criterion of stasis to make your decision, not realizing that the church, as a living entity, would grow and change over time.

The catholic church is far removed from the NT church in its teachings and practices. They do not rely solely on the word of God. They are not the Lord's church.

The church never relied "solely" on the bible until the Protestants came along 1500 years after Jesus. You've got two false criteria going here...

 

[sojourner]

Let's stop exalting men and a book and scriptures over the true Word of God who speaks to people within who genuinely seek Him in private, and is truth.

Private encounter has NEVER been the Christian paradigm. Relationship has always been the way of things. You can't love in a vacuum.

 

[Unification]

Private encounter has NEVER been the Christian paradigm. Relationship has always been the way of things. You can't love in a vacuum.

You have said that beautifully, friend. . The Lord shows us how to love and love purely, not ourselves, because He loved us first. Private encounters with God lead us to truth and love and pure love, then expressing itself to others, Him working through us and being led by the Spirit.

 

[gzusfrk]

[QUOTE="SaintMatthew, post: 4112235, member: 56003"The Bible is not easy to understand. It's a complex book whose words and ideas have captivated the world's most brilliant minds for millenia. Without an authoritative voice of interpretation --like a Church-- error and division are inevitable.





Diary -[/QUOTE]
I disagree, I believe the Word ( New Testament) is easy to understand, it was wrote for the children of God, His sheep. It was not necessarily wrote to be read, but it was wrote to read your heart, it tells you what it says according to your heart, no errors, just truth, which the heart of man has much difficult with.

 

[Unification]

[QUOTE="SaintMatthew, post: 4112235, member: 56003"The Bible is not easy to understand. It's a complex book whose words and ideas have captivated the world's most brilliant minds for millenia. Without an authoritative voice of interpretation --like a Church-- error and division are inevitable.



Only the Spirit through meditation on the Lord can teach words written by the Spirit. Carnal mind is enmity.

Diary -

I disagree, I believe the Word ( New Testament) is easy to understand, it was wrote for the children of God, His sheep. It was not necessarily wrote to be read, but it was wrote to read your heart, it tells you what it says according to your heart, no errors, just truth, which the heart of man has much difficult with.[/QUOTE]

 

[sojourner]

You have said that beautifully, friend. . The Lord shows us how to love and love purely, not ourselves, because He loved us first. Private encounters with God lead us to truth and love and pure love, then expressing itself to others, Him working through us and being led by the Spirit.

God is found in the spaces between us.

 

[sojourner]

It was not necessarily wrote to be read, but it was wrote to read your heart,

This may be the weakest, most mawkish and maudlin aphorism I've ever encountered.

 

[gzusfrk]

This may be the weakest, most mawkish and maudlin aphorism I've ever encountered.

Thank you, would you expect anything else?

 

[kepha31]

2 Peter 1:20 - Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are THOUSANDS of different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:16 -As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

 

[katiemygirl]

=

"sojourner, post: 4139680, member: 5010"]Then none of the gospels is "God's word," since they were all written "post-apostles."

The gospels were written post apostles? You are joking, right? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote their gospels after they were dead? Think about what you are saying. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all wrote their gospels before the last apostle died, which was JOHN. What you say makes no sense.

So, IOW, you used a false criterion of stasis to make your decision, not realizing that the church, as a living entity, would grow and change over time.

God's word never changes. I don't know where you come up with the idea that the church, as a living entity would change over time. How about a Scripture that says such a thing; book, chapter and verse PLEASE. Last time I checked, the church was built on the doctrine of Jesus and the apostles, and not what men did or said outside of God's word.

The church never relied "solely" on the bible until the Protestants came along 1500 years after Jesus. You've got two false criteria going here...

We are not to go beyond what is written. What anyone did after the last book of the New Testament was written (Revelation) should never dictate God's will for His people. That's what we have the New Testament for. If you think the New Testament is false criterion to make decisions concerning God's will, then you have a serious issue. Anything written outside of the Bible is the doctrines of men. I'll stick to God's word, thank you very much.

The following verses state that everything we need to know about salvation and living a godly life is found in the Scriptures.

2 Peter 1:3
By his divine power, God has given us everything we need for living a godly life. We have received all of this by coming to know him, the one who called us to himself by means of his marvelous glory and excellence.

2 Timothy 3:15-16
15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of Goda]">[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[Desert Snake]

Funny thread. It presupposes an alternative to someone getting their spirituality from the Bible exclusively, //a strawman//, here, to a specific denomination. It seems like a lose/lose situation for anyone who disagrees with the designated denomination. Because then you are guilty of the strawman. Get it? It's very clever, actually.

 

[kepha31]

=

God's word never changes.

Agreed. It's opinions of sola scripturists that fragment into thousands of denominations. It doesn't work.

I don't know where you come up with the idea that the church, as a living entity would change over time.

I would say develop, to address the needs (and the heresies) of the times that are not explicitly found in the Bible. "Develop" does not mean "change".

How about a Scripture that says such a thing; book, chapter and verse PLEASE.

John 14:26 -
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors, not individual bible readers) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.

John 16:12 -I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Jesus had many things to say but the apostles couldn't bear them at that point. This demonstrates that the Church's infallible doctrine develops over time. All public Revelation was completed with the death of the last apostle, but the doctrine of God's Revelation develops as our minds and hearts are able to welcome and understand it. God teaches His children only as much as they can bear, for their own good.

John 16:13 - Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear,that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Jesus promises that the Spirit will "guide" the Church into all truth. Our knowledge of the truth develops as the Spirit guides the Church, and this happens over time.

1 Timothy 3:15 KJV
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
It doesn't say the Bible is the pillar and ground of truth. A divine book needs a divinely guided interpreter.

Last time I checked, the church was built on the doctrine of Jesus and the apostles, and not what men did or said outside of God's word.

Again, you are half right. Nowhere in the Bible is "God's word" confined to the written word alone. If you disagree, chapter and verse, please.

We are not to go beyond what is written.

1 Corinthians 4:6 (NIV))
6Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

After Paul's first visit to Corinth, to establish the "Church" he discovered that the church was in the process of splitting with some factions claiming they belonged to "Paul" others to "Peter" and still others claiming to have a relationship with "JESUS" that no other group had.
Pauls declaration not to go beyond what is written ( or set down) was intended to bring the Church back to the faith and away from all the factions that were splitting the Church through the different interpretations and claims of authority.
As per philosophy professor Peter Kreeft advises, "We do not have the authority to edit the words of GOD", which was what was happening in Corinth - and following Father Martin Luther's posting of the 99 thesis.

What anyone did after the last book of the New Testament was written (Revelation) should never dictate God's will for His people. That's what we have the New Testament for. If you think the New Testament is false criterion to make decisions concerning God's will, then you have a serious issue. Anything written outside of the Bible is the doctrines of men. I'll stick to God's word, thank you very much.

I'll have to address this in another post. This is getting too long.

The following verses state that everything we need to know about salvation and living a godly life is found in the Scriptures.

2 Peter 1:3
By his divine power, God has given *us* everything we need for living a godly life. We have received all of this by coming to know him, the one who called us to himself by means of his marvelous glory and excellence.
*us* does not mean individual bible readers, it means the Apostles and their successors who were commissioned to "teach all nations"
everything we need is not referring to a New Testament that did not yet exist. It refers to the deposit of faith that was both handed down and written. To make one mode of transmission inferior or opposed to the other is unbiblical and a corrupt tradition of men.

2 Timothy 3:15-16
15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

It's no accident that defenders of sola scriptura always omit verse 14.
2 Timothy 3
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned (TRADITION) and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it (MAGISTERIUM) 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings (SCRIPTURE) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Now let's string these together so that we get the complete idea that St. Paul was trying to get across:

Continue in what you have learned, knowing from whom you learned it and you have been acquainted with the sacred writings that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Or to paraphrase even further:

Continue in the Traditions which you learned from Magisterial authority and study the Bible so that you may be fully equipped for every good work.

Verse 14 and 15 is a rebutting defeater to the much abused and isolated 2 Tim 3:16; sola scripturists ignore the previous 2 verses.

Interestingly enough in Catholic Tradition the four uses of Scripture corresponded to the Quadriga, the four-fold method of exegesis for the Bible used in the medieval period:
Literal (teaching),
Analogical (reproof),
Prophetic (correction),
and Moral (training in righteousness).
The protestant reformers rejected this and tried to reduce biblical exegesis to the literal-historical method. In doing so, they were considered by their Catholic contemporaries as being unbiblical for ignoring 2 Tim 3:16.

 

[kjv4me2you]

Only partially true.

They worked with many different texts, including the ones not chosen, and they felt that the ones that could be linked back to the apostles through apostolic succession should be chosen. But note that 1. it was the church's decision on how to go about selecting the canon, and 2. that some books they were not too enthused about, especially Hebrews (unknown author) and Revelations (problems with authorship even though it says "John on Patmos", and also the issue of the "millennial reign"), and we know this from church records on the process.

Secondly, there's no evidence whatsoever that suggests that the apostles chose any text with the exception some of Paul's earlier letters. However, they were not referred to as "scripture"-- just that they were worthy of reading and should be followed.

No matter how one looks at it, it was the church that chose the canon and not the other way around.

Jesus chose 12 apostles but it was YHWH-YaH who gave them to Jesus.
(John 15:16 KJV) Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

(John 17:2 KJV) As thou-YHWH-YaH hast given him- ( Jesus) power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou-YHWH-YaH hast given him.

(John 17:3 KJV) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee-(YWH-YaH) the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou(-YHWH-YaH) hast sent.

(John 17:12 KJV) While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name (YHWH-YaH) : those that thou-(YaH) gavest me- (Jesus) I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Did the church decide what Jesus would say or did Jesus say and do what his Father and God commanded/willed him to say from YHWH-YaH's Book.

(Prov 30:5 KJV) Every word of God is pure: he-it-H1931 is a shield unto them that put their trust in it.

(Prov 30:6 KJV) Add thou not unto his words-Book-H1697, lest he-it reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

God said He wrote His BOOK=(Exo 32:33 KJV) And YHWH_YaH said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me-YHWH-YaH, him will I blot out of my Book.

Blotted out of God's Book, not blotted out of the rcc's book.

God wrote His Book and preserves His Book without the help of Roman councils. God wrote His Book from Genesis to Revelation and gave it to the Hebrews, to Israel His Son even His Firstborn (Exo 4:22. and Exo 24:12).
Why would YHWH-YaH who wrote His Book and gave it to His Firstborn Son Israel and declare He would preserve His BOOK forever, then for some reason change His mind and decide the Romans could do a better job at preserving His Book for ever?

(Exo 24:12 KJV) And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I-YHWH-YaH will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I-YHWH-YaH have written; that thou mayest teach them.

Exo 24:12 is speaking about YHWH-YaH writing the 10 commandments, the law, and commandments.

(Exo 32:33 KJV) And YHWH-YaH said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I-YHWH-YaH blot out of MY Book.

THE WORDS OF YHWH-YaH ARE PURE WORDS
(Psa 12:6 KJV) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Vile men do not believe the sola words of God. The First Adam should have believed solely the words of God and he should not have believed satan's added word "NOT" spoken to Eve by the serpent .
The inability of Adam and Eve to solely believe the words of God was why they sinned against the word of God.

YHWH-YaH said
(Gen 2:17 KJV) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The serpents added on word "not" .
(Gen 3:4 KJV) And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Adam and Eve by believing the added word "NOT" from the serpent caused all men to believe that man can believe words added to the word of God.

Not believing the sola word of God is why Adam and Eve surely died unlearned and unstable perverts, double minded.
(James 1:8 KJV) A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.


(2 Pet 3:16 KJV) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction

(Psa 12:8 KJV) The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

The wicked walk on every side of the pure words of God but they never walk in the doctrine of sola scripture for all church doctrines.

The wicked have THEIR rock but their rock IS NOT OUR ROCK

(Deu 32:31 KJV) For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.

(Deu 32:32 KJV) For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter:

willyah