Thanatos's Theological Treatise #3

Theologian Thanatos triumphs again, with his third, yes, THIRD, Thanatos’s Theological Treatise! He’s hoping you’ll all enjoy this one as much as you’ve the first two (in a good way, of course!). As always, please read the entire review through before posting comments!

What book are you reviewing this time?

Have you ever talked to a Protestant?

Did the topic of Sola Scriptura ever come up by any chance?

Ever wanted to prove it false, but just didn’t know how?

Ever wanted a book that not only covered every possible conceivable base for Sola Scriptura, but also render the notion completely and utterly shattered?

Are you Zenith Darksea?

Well, you’ve come to the right place! This little beauty will leave your Protestant friends utterly speechless and unable to defend themselves*!

*This only works on Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox being immune for obvious reasons.

Enough with this shtick! What is the name of the book?

The name of the book is “Scripture Alone? by Joel Peters: 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Sciptura.”

The ISBN number for this book is 0-89555-640-5.

The Library of Congress Catalog Card Number is: 98-61405.

Here’s the cover of the book:



It’s a very tiny book, as you can tell. But then again, it’s not that hard to prove Sola Scriptura as false.

Still not convinced?

How about this? Tiny book:



Very tiny book:



As you can see, it really is a tiny book. You can easily finish the entire book in one sitting. I’d give you an hour at the most.

Here’s the back cover of the book:



Well, for a book that claims to do all this, it better be good! What are the contents of the book?

Glad you asked! Here are the arguments by Peters that show that Sola Scriptura is undeniably a false and ruinous doctrine:






Can you give us a review or synopsis on the book?

Sure. The book starts off with the common assertion from XYZ Protestant, stating how he believes in the Bible alone, and that the Bible is solely the foundation and sole rule of faith for any Christian.

Peters takes an intensive look at this statement, beginning by looking at what this statement means, what it’s implications are, the history behind the creation of Sola Scriptura in the fourteenth century, and later wide-spread propagation during the sixteenth century.

Bit by bit, Peters takes the Protestant assertions apart, and readily comes up with counterarguments to any objections or excuses a Protestant can come up with in his own defense. More importantly, he shows how deeply flawed and hypocritical the idea of Sola Scriptura is when it is forced to judge itself – namely, the Protestant Bible.

In the end, it sadly also shows how the main propagator of the Sola Scriptura notion, Martin Luther, was actually suffering from a mental dysfunctional disorder and eventually came to turn against the Church to escape his presupposed feelings of inescapable guilt by using distorting the messages of the Bible for his own ends, despite the fact that the Bible was already codified and canonized by the end of the fourth century, under the greatest doctors, saints, and theologians the Church had to offer.

This book is an absolute must-read for any catholic (Catholic & Orthodox) Christian determined to show the Protestant that there is no basis for Sola Scriptura, and a massive eye-opener for the Protestant himself, once he realizes the grievous error he has made in his judgment.

Here is the link to the book via Amazon, complete with angry Protestant remarks! Peters must be onto something. :hmmm:

http://www.amazon.com/Scripture-Alon...085009-6841565

Again, I would like to thank all those who took the time to read my reviews – my reviews would not be here were it not for all of you reading them!

P.S. – On a side note, I would like to point out that TTT #4 will not be coming for a little while, as I’m still in the middle of reading the book I’m going to be doing later on.

Check back in a month! If I’m still not done by then, feel free to remind me via PM!

Thanatos

Great again.

I will be sure to check it out... even if I don't get a chance to use it. I am yet to meet a protestant in "RL" that knows much about what it actually means to be a protestant. Damn shame.

Looking forward to the next TTT.

BTW I just got a pocket version of the Douay-Rheims New Testament and Psalms and am enjoying it immensely. I especially like having it all in miniature and in my pocket. I love that it is so close to the Latin that the wording has the same simplistic and beautiful yet slightly "clunky" feel to it.

there's only 1 flaw, theists won't listen to your logical witchcraft!

Thanatos, now that I've seen your face you'll be more than just text on my screen . Good review, although I'm waiting for the flaming controversy to begin (why it still didn't as I post?).

Originally Posted by Marcus Tullius Cicero

Thanatos, now that I've seen your face you'll be more than just text on my screen .

You could have checked Say Cheese at any time!

Good review, although I'm waiting for the flaming controversy to begin (why it still didn't as I post?).

Well, I was wondering as to what I should do for TTT #3, so I decided to do this book because I remember how Zenith Darksea was having so much trouble talking to the Protestants in this forum about Sola Scriptura, and all the implications and whatnot.

I also chose this because another book I was planning to review kind of turned out to be taking longer than I thought. That'll have to be TTT #4.

That looks like a pretty comprehensive book actually, though I think it's a little unfair of the author to devote two chapters to the fact that there are variations in the manuscript tradition and that we don't have original manuscripts, since that could be said of virtually any ancient document (I can't think of any extant originals from my own period of specialisation), and many or most of these variations are spelling errors and so forth.

However, that aside, it looks like a pretty good read. As for the last chapter attacking Luther's emotional state however, while it may be true, I think it would have been better for the author to have remained aloof and not made it quite such a personal issue.

Originally Posted by Zenith Darksea

That looks like a pretty comprehensive book actually, though I think it's a little unfair of the author to devote two chapters to the fact that there are variations in the manuscript tradition and that we don't have original manuscripts, since that could be said of virtually any ancient document (I can't think of any extant originals from my own period of specialisation), and many or most of these variations are spelling errors and so forth.

However, that aside, it looks like a pretty good read. As for the last chapter attacking Luther's emotional state however, while it may be true, I think it would have been better for the author to have remained aloof and not made it quite such a personal issue.

Well, I believe that he was just trying to cover all the bases and keep shooting from the hip, so that the Protestants could have no place to fall back on.

Glad you like it as well. You were the reason I wrote this one.

That's very flattering, thank you!

Well, like I mentioned earlier, it was all from that one time I chanced to see you arguing with someone rather about Sola Scriptura, so I thought I'd just help out.

EDIT: Amazing. This one thread has gotten so many views, yet people have yet to really post. Things have really died down since my first TTT!

This one thread has gotten so many views, yet people have yet to really post.

Well all your really giving us is a book review. Im sure there are plenty of books that teach just the opposite and use plenty of quotes from the bible to make it just as authentic.

As for the topic your probably right theologically, but religion isn't about aloof philosophy. Its about the experience. And from personal experiences in my area the protestant churches are much more pleasant. At least the Methodists and Presbyterian Churches.

Originally Posted by Earl of Rochester

Well all your really giving us is a book review. Im sure there are plenty of books that teach just the opposite and use plenty of quotes from the bible to make it just as authentic.

That's the point. This book takes those assertions and proves them false.

As for the topic your probably right theologically, but religion isn't about aloof philosophy. Its about the experience. And from personal experiences in my area the protestant churches are much more pleasant. At least the Methodists and Presbyterian Churches.

So we should all forget the meaning behind religion, it's all good if it makes you feel good, is that it?

That's the point. This book takes those assertions and proves them false.

As many would prove it false. The bible can be used to uphold just about whatever position you want.

So we should all forget the meaning behind religion, it's all good if it makes you feel good, is that it?

The point of religion is to worship God is it not? So shouldn't you look for the place that you feel does that best? I would think that more important than theological debate.

I mean when an atheists argues religion all the sudden it becomes a matter of faith and undebatable.

But then when people in the same religion debate all the sudden it becomes logical?

Originally Posted by Dracula

Experience with churches is not experience with God . I can go anywhere and feel well conversing with many people and enjoying their company .But this pleasance will not be God's mystical presence .Yes it has to be mystical . God is out of this world Being .
Protestant churches are something alike "diaconia " in the others .The entrance to the true church where people have ordinary matters to care not communion with God.

And yes,this thread is a pleasure as always ,however not quite useful . We enoy it ,catholic and orthodox and may celebrate your wit . But the protestants will run away as usual .To catch them intact,you need to make a thread for God's essence and how can we feel it nowadays in our times .Something more astounding and profound . How can you feel Christ ? What are the deeds according to the law of the Gospel ? How do the Father and the Son together with the H.Spirit come and dwell into those that are worthy of it ? What are the results of this communion ? Sanctification of the body,of the soul,of the spirit ? How can you notice the presence of God ? etc. Practical life in Christ .

Thank you for your kind comments. I know, it's just that I feel that the whole issue would be better served by opening another thread entirely, however. The TTTs are primarily just a book review/recommendation service I do on behalf of TWC.

TTT#4 is still going to be a bit catholic-based (Catholic/Orthodox), but Protestants will be able to grasp what I am going to be recommending much better this time around, given the more openended-ness of the subject at hand.

Originally Posted by Earl of Rochester

As many would prove it false. The bible can be used to uphold just about whatever position you want.

Not necessarily. You will never find pedophilia or abortion recommended, for example.

The point of religion is to worship God is it not? So shouldn't you look for the place that you feel does that best? I would think that more important than theological debate.

Yes, but your preference for religion is merely one that suits your already-made beliefs and assumptions and biases. That's not entering into religion!

I mean when an atheists argues religion all the sudden it becomes a matter of faith and undebatable.

But then when people in the same religion debate all the sudden it becomes logical?

Sorry, not getting what you're saying here. Could you elaborate a bit?

Not necessarily. You will never find pedophilia or abortion recommended, for example.

Hence why I said just about whatever, clearly stating that there are obvious things that the bible cannot be used to support.

Yes, but your preference for religion is merely one that suits your already-made beliefs and assumptions and biases. That's not entering into religion!

What do you mean already-made beliefs, assumptions, and biases? I've continually changed my beliefs assumptions and biases hoping to get closer to the truth. You are the one who has already-made assumptions, beliefs, and biases all bestowed upon you by the Catholic Church. And anyways this is a sidestep.

Religion is personal worship of God. When picking a religion it is foolish to look at the finer points of dogma, because religion is not about dogma. Religion is about experiencing the all loving God. So if the protestant churches are a better avenue to worship God then someone should follow them.

Sorry, not getting what you're saying here. Could you elaborate a bit?

In any debate on whether God exists it ends up to the same basic conclusion. Religion cannot be disproven because its a matter of faith. Logically it can be easily disproven, but again logic holds little weight in matters of religion.

So I don't understand how religion can be justified against logic on the basis of faith, yet then you use logic to prove which denomination is best. Do you not see the discrepancy here?

Earl: I mean when an atheists argues religion all the sudden it becomes a matter of faith and undebatable.

But then when people in the same religion debate all the sudden it becomes logical?

Me: Actually what is really happening is that you're nearly always dealing with two superfical people who's knowledge of religious matters is scanty. If there's one thing to be said about the west in this day and age is our horrible ignorance of both history and religion.

I've seen atheists and theists go at it in a rational manner and it gets rather amusing when you see who ends up making the faith claims in such a case when both are actually intending to be rational about it.

But I forget which wag it was who summed up 99.9% of all religious debate as a constant exchange of "Is so!" "Is not!" That is simply the consequence of our day and age's ideas as to what constitutes genuine education.

When Luther and Eck hammered each other back in 1515, it was not at all like today's typical debate. Both men were quite capable of rational thinking. In fact, the last genuine debate I saw was between Ronald Regan and Jimmy Carter back in 1980. If you think there have been any genuine debates between presidential candidates since then, you are sorely mistaken.

In short, what constitutes religious debate these days is not debate, and hasn't been for quite some time. It's argument, and both sides ultimately are merely expressing their own points of view which are seldom, if ever, internally consistant, let alone rational.

Originally Posted by Earl of Rochester

And from personal experiences in my area the protestant churches are much more pleasant. At least the Methodists and Presbyterian Churches.

Experience with churches is not experience with God . I can go anywhere and feel well conversing with many people and enjoying their company .But this pleasance will not be God's mystical presence .Yes it has to be mystical . God is out of this world Being .
Protestant churches are something alike "diaconia " in the others .The entrance to the true church where people have ordinary matters to care not communion with God.

And yes,this thread is a pleasure as always ,however not quite useful . We enoy it ,catholic and orthodox and may celebrate your wit . But the protestants will run away as usual .To catch them intact,you need to make a thread for God's essence and how can we feel it nowadays in our times .Something more astounding and profound . How can you feel Christ ? What are the deeds according to the law of the Gospel ? How do the Father and the Son together with the H.Spirit come and dwell into those that are worthy of it ? What are the results of this communion ? Sanctification of the body,of the soul,of the spirit ? How can you notice the presence of God ? etc. Practical life in Christ .

sorry to go waaaaaay off topic but THantos you kinda look like Kal Pen.

WTF? I do not look like him... methinks.

That was so random...



EDIT: And for an update, I will be gone for the next three days, due to my family's vacation.

I'll see you all after that time.

Who cares if Protestantism is wrong.
It was always wrong.
It's a religion.

It's just groups of bearded men talking about their invisible friend.

Thantos it probally was just the way the light hit you in the picture you took that made you look like Kal Penn.

Religion is not wrong its just misguided.