Do these passages prove Sola Scriptura?

Eric, so apparently you aren't as knowledgeable about the ECFs as you might think if you don't know what "the rule of faith" is. I commend to you the book I mentioned above, plus any standard work on early Christian doctrines such as EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES by JND Kelly or THE EMERGENCE OF THE CATHOLIC TRADITION by Jaroslav Pelikan (etc). (BTW--the Didache is indeed a lot closer to being a "church manual" than the NT writings, but that was not what is meant by the "rule of faith". Also Ignatius did more than just mention the Eucharist. He spoke of it in several places in the familiar ways of expressing the common belief in the Real Presence.) At any rate I don't determine what it is--it's contents were expressed by several of the ECFs, notably Irenaeus and Tertullian (in his orthodox days). The "rule" was summary to the Apostolic kerygma and thus served as an accurate apostolic interpretation of Scripture; yet even the "rule" wasn't exhaustive of that tradition bequeathed by the apostles to the church.

I disagree, as does the historic Church. These do not contradict the relevent Scriptures properly understood (ie when these Scriptures aren't made to support conclusions not warranted by their immediate contexts). Besides there is "biblical basis" for both of these practices even if indirect (ie not coming in the form of "thou shalt/may do 'X'...)

.........................................................................................

Stan the man,

Good post.

[ May 15, 2006, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Doubting Thomas ]

 

Ignatius did not speak of "Real Presence". He just used a metaphor (bread and wine 'are' the flesh and blood) that later leaders would read something else into.


I have Kelley's book; in fact, it is where I got a lot of my information about the early Church (as well as some of the ECF's themselves in the book "Lost Books of the Bible and Forgotten Books of Eden), including the fact that many of these doctrines in the Church developed, rather than being handed down wholesale from the apostles. I remember reading of the Rule of Faith, but that was years ago, so I forgot. Still, you do make it sound like more than what it really was. (I will continue to research that). For now, look at what he says regarding Irenaeus:

He then moves on to Tertullian, who he says is basically the same as Irenaeus. It was in the following century with Clement and Origen (both of Alexandria, a source of much corruption in doctrine) that this began changing into some "secret tradition...including semi-Gnostic speculations [or] ...an esoteric theology based on the Bible...reseved for the intellectual elite of the Church"

And how do you know the "rule' was less than ("wasn't exhaustive of") the tradition? The NT mentions :"tradition", but doesn't say how many of them there were (as well as them being anything different from what was written).

The biblical bases of those practices you have mentioned so far are not biblical at all. We have not discussed "Fathers", but the only thing you said for images was that Christ came down incarnate. Still, by what basis does that revoke the command against images? What does one have to do with the other--the one Son of God walking the earth have to do with a picture someone draws (centuries later, or were those passed all the way down too?) of a saint or Mary? We cannot just jump one thing over to something else like that. You can appeal to tradition, but then there must be some way to test this tradition (and NOT with ITSELF!) and see how it possibly is even consistent with scripture, and what you've suggested sounds like just as much as a retrospective attempt to justify it as anything we "1500AD" Christians say.

 

Wrong.

Their "magesterium" was that of the one true church started by God at Sinai. IF they were to even listen to Paul they would have to first DUMP their magesterium's authorotative condemnation of Paul. Paul did not appear to them as "The Catholic Church" - RATHER he looked like a Jew that was off starting a cult or sect of Judaism.

SECOND - they could not simply and illogically "DUMP their magesterium and leap off a cliff with the first Apostle that they didn't recognize or believe in". They needed some BASIS to act. And that was scripture.

Acts 17 shows them ready to put man-made-traditions and wild derees from the magesterium - on hold.

It shows them willing to PICK UP Scripture and BEGIN to evaluate the teaching of Paul to "SEE IF" those things he spoke "WERE SO".

These are the "inconvenient details" that those who blindly follow man-made-tradition will "have" to gloss over in Acts 17.

Agreed?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Stan the Man makes some excellent points; πασα γραφη being the most noteworthy IMO.

 

I think Scripture proves all the doctrines necessary for our believing in the Truth. Scripture is not the Encyclopedia and therefore if any doctrine is not found there, it is not necessary or worthwhile to know about or God may not want us to know about it.
Therefore Sola Scriptura is correct.

Another aspect is again the Supremacy or the Sovereignty of the Scripture. Nothing can replace or supersede Scripture.

Anti-Sola Scripture is the Cry of Unbelievers!

 

I have to agree with Matt on this one. What Stan said there is true.

Our Bible contains 66 books and this is where our doctrine comes from.

Stan might try to "spin" this by taking Genesis 1:1 and claiming that if "ALL DOCTRINE" is not available from the first verse in the Bible then ALL of the Bible can be rejected as "sufficient" for "instruction, doctrine, correction that the child of God may be adequately equipped for EVERY good work".

But we would be wise not to fall for such a "spin".

Further - if the effort to "Test" sola scriptura is confined to "downsizing" the statements of Christ and ignoring the salient points of context - we would be wise not to fall for such spin doctoring there as well.

Mark 7 provides the perfect example of the "magesterium" getting the cabbashhh because of their indulgence in the sinful human intendency to " invalidate the Word of God with Tradition - teaching for DOCTRINE the commandments of MAN" under the guise of "God-directed Magesterium that must be trusted anyway".

True enough. But the "salient" point from Christ to the failing magesterium is not "Hey suprise you guys - the scriptures DO have doctrinal authority". Rather the big surprise was that they were caught BY SCRIPTURE SHOWING their man-made-doctrines were actually contradicting the Word of God.

Jesus gave no credit to "The Traditions of man TAUGHT as DOCTRINE". In fact the specific text says that the Jewish MAGESTERIUM is condemned for "Teaching for Doctrine the commandments of MEN"

Actually we DO have that from Mark 7 if the choice is 'the commandments of MEN vs Scripture" EVEN if that scripture is the OT!

ACtually Jesus said that their doctrine was REFUTED by that portion of scripture - the TEN Commandments that affirm "Honor your Parents" whereas they had MADE UP the idea of a "WILL" (that was CORBAN ) allowing rejection of the obligation to support one's parents.

The salient point is not "PROVABLE" but rather "CONTRADICTED"!! Obviously the entire idea of CORBAN was MADE Up by the Magesterium so "not provable" BUT MORE importanly it was a CONTRADICTION of scripture!

AGAIN - Christ did not simply say "you can not PROVE this with scripture" HE said you have invented man-made-doctrine that CONTRADICTS the Word of God!

This is as compared to the Acts 17 case where the Gospel message of Paul is PROVEN by the Word of God!!

By a careless approach to Mark 7 one might IGNORE the "Bible Contradicts Tradition of the magesterium" -- key and blatant point of the passage.

Surely we would never do that!

In Christ,

Bob

 

In addition to the devastating condemnation of Christ against those members of the magesterium that "teach for Doctrine the Commandments of man"Mark 7 (which is the negative case) we ALSO have the positive cases of 2Tim 3 and Acts 17:11.

As even Stan appears to be willing to quote.

So How "best" to water down that text??

Notice that the watered down version has this as an announcement by Paul that "As it turns out there is SOME GOOD in scripture after all"!!

Let's contrast that to the actual CONTEXT of 2Tim 3 where we are told that "FROM HIS YOUTH" Timothy had been trained in the scriptures and that this training has resulted in the present case in his life SINCE scripture is inspired AND the source of instruction, training AND ALSO fully equipping of the saints!

In other word Paul is directly attributing Timothy's salvation and current success in the Gospel to the all sufficiency of scripture. He does not say "Due primarily to the traditions of man and oh by the way scripture also helped some because it does have some good uses" - the way the spin in Stan's note would have it.

Basically Stan's approach REQUIRES that the reader NOT read 2Tim3 outside of a small snippet.

Frankly - I find that to be the case any time tradition is being exaulted over scripture.

In arguing FOR The sufficiency of "Scripture" the argument is that Paul attributes TIMOTHY's progress, salvation and current success to NOTHING BUT the scriptures -- that are ALL inspired and that resulted in that equipping.

So "how to refute" that scripture! That is the challenge. Stan finds a possible avenue with the term "adequately equipped"

Here is an attempt to equivocate between unmatched context. Paul is explicitly pointing to Timothy's life and history and then identifying the source that results in salvation and the successful ministry of this evangelist.

It is impossible to ignore the fact that Paul ONLY selects "Scripture" as the source of that success -- not "man made tradition". In fact ALL reference to man-made-tradition is conspicuously missing from 2Tim 3 as if it played no role at all!

In Christ,

Bob

 

By just using sola scriptura(Bible only) how do we know for sure what belongs in the Bible?

 

How do we know for sure what belongs in the Bible?

A problem for sola scriptura is the canon of the New Testament. There's no "inspired table of contents" in Scripture that tells us which books belong and which ones don't. That information comes to us from outside Scripture. Our knowledge of which books comprise the canon of the New Testament must be infallible; if not, there's no way to know for sure if the books we regard as inspired really are inspired. It must be binding; otherwise folks would be free to have their own customized canon containing those books they take a fancy to and lacking the ones they don't. And it must be part of divine revelation; if it's not it's merely a tradition of men, and if that were so, Protestants would be forced into the intolerable position of championing a canon of purely human origin.

These facts don't square with the classic Protestant creeds, for example the Westminster Confession, which asserts that, "The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem for the Holy Scripture ... yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." This is pure Mormonism-the old "I know it's inspired because I feel in my heart that it's inspired" line that Mormon missionaries use. As a proof for the inspiration of Scripture, this bromide is useless.

Sola scriptura becomes "canon" fodder as soon as the someone asks the Protestant to explain how the books of the Bible got into the Bible. Under the sola scriptura rubric, Scripture exists in an absolute epistemological vacuum, since it and the veracity of its contents "dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church." If that's true, how then can anyone know with certitude what belongs in Scripture in the first place? Without recognizing the trustworthiness of the Catholic Church, endowed with Christ's own teaching authority (c.f., Matt. 16:18-19, 18:18; Luke 10:16} guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:25-26; 16:13), and the living apostolic Tradition of the Church (1 Cor. 11:1; 2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Timothy 2:2), there is no way to know for certain which books belong in Scripture and which do not. As soon as Protestants begin to appeal to the canons drawn up by this or that Father, or this or that council, they immediately concede defeat, since they are forced to appeal to the very "testimony of man and Church" that they claim to not need.

 

"This is pure Mormonism ..." - you're talking of a confession of faith in the Bible , sir, not in rubbish.

 

Here are some practical problems of sola scriptura.

A necessarily corollary of the doctrine of sola scriptura is, therefore, the idea of an absolute right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures. Each individual has the final prerogative to decide for himself what the correct interpretation of a given passage of Scripture means, irrespective of what anyone-or everyone-else says. If anyone or even everyone else together could tell the believer what to believe, Scripture would not be his sole authority; something else would have binding authority. Thus, according to sola scriptura, any role Tradition, a Magisterium, Bible commentaries, or anything else may play in theology is simply to suggest interpretations and evidence to the believer as he makes his decision. Each individual Christian is thus put in the position of being his own theologian.

Of course, we all know that the average Christian does not exercise this role in any consistent way, even the average person admitted by Fundamentalists to be a genuine, "born again" believer. There are simply too many godly grannies who are very devout in their faith in Jesus, but who are in no way inclined to become theologians.

Not only is the average Christian totally disinclined to fulfill the role of theologian, but if they try to do so, and if they arrive at conclusions different than those of the church they belong to — an easy task considering the number of different theological issues — then they will quickly discover that their right to private judgment amounts to a right to shut up or leave the congregation. Protestant pastors have long realized (in fact, Luther and Calvin realized it) that, although they must preach the doctrine of private judgment to ensure their own right to preach, they must prohibit the exercise of this right in practice for others, lest the group be torn apart by strife and finally break up. It is the failure of the prohibition of the right of private judgment that has resulted in the over 33,000+ Christian Protestant denominations listed in the Oxford University Press's World Christian Encyclopedia.

The disintegration of Protestantism into so many competing factions, teaching different doctrines on key theological issues (What kind of faith saves? Is baptism necessary? Needed? Is baptism for infants? Must baptism be by immersion only? Can one lose salvation? How? Can it be given back? How? Is the Real Presence true? Are spiritual gifts like tongues and healing for today? For everyone? What about predestination? What about free will? What about church government?) is itself an important indicator of the practical failure of the doctrine of private judgment, and thus the doctrine of sola scriptura.

However, there is a whole set of practical presuppositions that the doctrine of sola scriptura makes, every one of which provides not just an argument against the doctrine, but a fatal blow to it. Sola scriptura simply cannot be God's plan for Christian theology.

In fact, it could never even have been thought to be God's plan before a certain stage in European history because, as we will see, it could have only arisen after a certain technological development which was unknown in the ancient world. Before that one development, nobody would have ever thought that sola scriptura could be the principle God intended people to use, meaning it was no accident that the Reformation occurred when it did.

If God had intended the individual Christian to use sola scriptura as his operating principle then it would have to be something the average Christian could implement. We can therefore judge whether sola scriptura could have been God's plan for the individual Christian by asking whether the average Christian in world history could have implemented it.

Not only that, but since God promised that the Church would never pass out of existence (Matt. 16:18, 28:20), the normal Christian of each age must be able to implement sola scriptura, including the crucial patristic era, when the early Church Fathers hammered out the most basic tenets of Christian orthodoxy.

It is in this practical area that the doctrine comes crashing down, for it has a number of presuppositions which are in no way true of the average Christian of world history, and certainly not of the average Christian of early Church history.

First, if each Christian is to make a thorough study of the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean (even taking into consideration the interpretations of others) then it follows that he must have a copy of the Scriptures to use in making his thorough study (a non-thorough study being a dangerous thing, as any Protestant apologist warning one against the cults and their Bible study tactics will tell you). Thus the universal application of sola scriptura presupposes the mass manufacturing of books, and of the Bible in particular.

This, however, was completely impossible before invention of the printing press, for without that there could not be enough copies of the Scriptures for the individual Christians to use. Sola scriptura therefore presupposes the inventing of the printing press, something that did not happen for the first 1,400 years of Church history.

It is often noted by even Protestant historians that the Reformation could not have taken off like it did in the early 1500s if the printing press had not been invented in the mid-1400s, and this is more true than they know, because the printing press not only allowed the early Protestant to mass produce works containing their teachings about what the Bible meant, it allowed the mass production of Bible itself.
Without the ability to mass produce copies of the Scriptures for the individual Christians to interpret, the doctrine of sola scriptura could not function, since one would only have very limited access to the texts otherwise — via the Scripture readings at Mass and the costly, hand-made copies of the Bible kept on public display at the church. Thus sola scriptura presupposes the printing press.

This is a key reason why the Reformation happened when it did — several decades after the invention of the printing press. It took time for the idea of the printing press to make its mark on the European mind and get people excited about the idea of easily available books. It was in this heady atmosphere, the first time in human history when dozens of ancient works were being mass produced and sold, that people suddenly got excited with the thought, "Hey! We could give copies of the Bible to everyone! Everyone could read the Scriptures for themselves!"— a thought which led very quickly into sola scriptura in the minds of those who wished to oppose historic Christian theology, as it would provide a justification for their own desire to depart from orthodoxy ("Hey, I read the Scriptures, and this is what they said to me!").

Of course, the invention of the printing press does not itself enable us to give Bibles to every Christian in the world, which leads to the next practical presupposition of sola scriptura...

Second, besides the printing press, sola scriptura also presupposes the universal distribution of books and of the Bible in particular. For it is no good if enough copies of the Bible exist but they can't be given into the hands of the average believer. There thus must be a distribution network capable of delivering affordable copies of the Bible to the average Christian.

This is the case today in the developed world; however, even today we cannot get enough Bibles into many lands due to economic and political restraints, as the fund raising appeals of Bible societies and their stories of Bible smuggling inform us. However, in the great majority of Christian history, the universal distribution of books would have been totally impossible even in the what is now the developed world. During most of Church history, the "developed world" was undeveloped.

The political systems, economies, logistical networks, and travel infrastructure that make the mass distribution of Bibles possible today simply did not exist for three-quarters of Church history. There was no way to get the books to the peasants, and no way the peasants could have afforded them in the first place. There just wasn't enough cash in circulation.

Third, if the average Christian is going to read the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean then he obviously must be able to read. Having someone read them to him simply is not sufficient, not only because the person would only be able to do it occasionally (what with a bunch of illiterates to read to), but also because the person needs to be able to go over the passage multiple times, looking at its exact wording and grammatical structure, to be able to quickly flip to other passages bearing on the topic to formulate the different aspects of a doctrine as he is thinking about it, and finally to be able to record his insights so he doesn't forget them and he can keep the evidence straight in his mind. He therefore must be literate and able to read for himself. Thus sola scriptura presupposes universal literacy.

Fourth, if the average Christian is going to make a study of what Scripture says and decide what it teaches, he must possess adequate scholarly support material, for he must either be able to read the texts in the original languages or have material capable of telling him when there is a translation question that could affect doctrine (for example, does the Greek word for "baptize" mean "immerse" or does it have a broader meaning? does the biblical term for "justify" mean to make righteous in only a legal sense or sometimes in a broader one?).

He must also have these scholarly support works (commentaries and such) to suggest to him possible alternate interpretations to evaluate, for no one person is going to be able to think of every interpretive option on every passage of Scripture that is relevant to every major Christian doctrine. No Protestant pastor (at least no pastors who are not in extreme anti-intellectual circles) would dream of formulating his views without such support materials, and he thus cannot expect the average Christian to do so either. Indeed! The average Christian is going to need such support materials even more than a trained pastor. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes the possession-not just the existence-of adequate support materials.

Fifth, if the average Christian is to do a thorough study of the Bible for himself, then he obviously must have adequate time in which to do this study. If he is working in the fields or a home (or, later, in the factory) for ten, twelve, fifteen, or eighteen hours a day, he obviously doesn't have time to do this, especially not in addition to the care and raising of his family and his own need to eat and sleep and recreate. Not even a Sunday rest will provide him with the adequate time, for nobody becomes adept in the Bible just by reading the Bible on Sundays — as Protestants stress to their own members when encouraging daily Bible reading. Thus sola scriptura presupposes the universal possession of adequate leisure time in which to make a thorough study the Bible for oneself.

Sixth, even if a Christian had adequate time to study the Bible sufficiently, it will do him no good if he doesn't have a diet sufficiently nutritious to let his brain function properly and his mind work clearly. This is something we often forget today because our diets are so rich, but for most of Christian history the average person had barely enough food to survive, and it was almost all bread. "Everything else," as the British historian James Burke put it, "was just something you ate with bread"— as a condiment or side-dish. This means that the average Christian of world history was malnourished, and as any public school dietitian can tell you, malnutrition causes an inability to study and learn properly. That is one of the big motivating forces behind the school lunch program. If kids don't eat right, they don't study right, and they don't learn right, because they don't think clearly. The same is true of Bible students. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes universal nutrition.

Seventh, if the average Christian is going to evaluate competing interpretations for himself then he must have a significant amount of skill in evaluating arguments. He must be able to recognize what is a good argument and what is not, what is a fallacy and what is not, what counts as evidence and what does not. That is quite a bit of critical thinking skill, and anyone who has ever tried to teach basic, introductory logic to college students or anyone who had tried to read and grade the persuasive essays they write for philosophy tests can tell you (I have been told about the experience), that level of critical thinking does not exist in the average, literate, well-nourished, modern college senior, much less the average, illiterate, malnourished, Medieval peasant. This is especially true when it comes to the abstract concepts and truth claims involved in philosophy and theology. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes a high level of universal education in critical thinking skills (a level which does not even exist today).

Therefore sola scriptura presupposes (1) the existence of the printing press, (2) the universal distribution of Bibles, (3) universal literacy, (4) the universal possession of scholarly support materials, (5) the universal possession of adequate time for study, (6) universal nutrition, and (7) a universal education in a high level of critical thinking skills. Needless to say, this group of conditions was not true in the crucial early centuries of the Church, was not true through the main course of Church history, and is not even true today. The non-existence of the printing press alone means sola scriptura was totally unthinkable for almost three-quarters of Christian history!

All of this is besides the limitations I mentioned earlier-the fact that the average Christian, even the average devout Christian has no inclination whatsoever to conduct the kind of Bible study needed to become his own theologian and the fact that he is encouraged by many pressures from his own pastor and congregation (including the threat of being cast out) to fall in line and not challenge — especially publicly challenge--the party platform.

CHRISTIANITY FOR THE COMMON MAN?
It is thus hard to think of sola scriptura as anything but the theory spawned by a bunch of idealistic, Renaissance-era dilettantes — people who had an interest in being their own theologians, who had a classical education in critical thinking skills, who had adequate nutrition, who had plenty of leisure time for study, who had plenty of scholarly support materials, who had good reading skills, who had access to Bible-sellers, and most importantly, who had printed Bibles!

The average Christian today, even the average Christian in the developed world, does not fit that profile, and the average Christian in world history certainly did not, much less the average Christian in the early centuries. What this means, since God does not ask a person to do what they are incapable of doing, is that God does not expect the average Christian of world history to use sola scriptura. He expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain his knowledge of theology in some other way.

But if God expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain the Christian faith without using sola scriptura, then sola scriptura is not God's plan.

Here is another thought:
Any written document meant to play a crucial role in determining how people live must have a living, continuing authority to guard, guarantee, and officially interpret it. Otherwise, chaos would reign as everyone interpreted the document according to his personal whim.

The Founding Fathers of this country put together a magnificent document to authoritatively determine how this country would be governed: the U.S. Constitution. They also established a living, continuing authority to guard, guarantee, and officially interpret the Constitution: the Supreme Court.

The Founding Fathers knew that without a living authority the Constitution would lead to endless divisions as each one acted as his own interpreter. God certainly has more wisdom than the founders of this country. He would never have left a written document to be the only rule of faith without a living authority to guard and officially interpret it.

 

Bible itself shows us what is human history book or human theory, and what is the true Words of God. Holy Spirit helps us to discern what are the True Words of God.
It is a matter of Canonizing, not the matter of Sola Scriptura.

What else can anyone put anything above the Bible actually?

 

This is "pure misdirection".

Our task today IS NOT to "find more books to put in the Bible"!

NEITHER do we "conclude" that "Bible compilers are in fact BIBLE WRITERS or AUTHORS of scripture".

As it turned out CHRIST already HAD access to the Septuagint in His day and we KNOW the OT was complete 300 years BEFORE Christ!

We also know that the NT books were all written AND READ by the NT church BEFORE the first century AD!!

So the books accepted AT THAT TIME - prior to the 2nd century writers having any chance at corrupting the NT text and crowding their way "in" were written read and accepted.

It is only AFTER the first century that INCREASED error and INCREASED doubt begins to surface.

It is only BECAUSE of the errors of the Catholic Church starting early in church history that we even HAVE a problem at all!

So that leaves us with THE BIBLE and doctrine itself - and the TEXTS of the OP!

Again.

In that case WE HAVE NO DOUBT -- Sola scriptura is SEEN in Mark 7 just as it is SEEN in Acts 17!

Clearly and decisively used to REFUTE the MAGESTERIUM in Mark 7 and used to JUDGE the Apostle PAUL in Acts 17!

This could not be any "easier" to see!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

But in all fairness to those still floundering in efforts to try to muster a defense for the position that rejects "Sola scriptura" here is one given to you "grattis" by DHK on Mark 2.

DHK claims that in Mark 2 the Jews are accurately USING the Sola Scriptura approach to defend and define proper doctrine on the Sabbath. He then claims that Christ is ABOLISHING that on His own verbal statement oral-tradition/doctrine. He claims the PROBLEM the Jews have is that they are relying on their accurate and precise understanding of scripture -- taking the case "sola scriptura" when in fact they should just be dumping scripture and listening to whatever the carpenter says - even if it is "transgress what you read in scripture about the Sabbath".

Obviously most of those on this board would not go along with that - but it is at least "an argument" offerred recently in your favor!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here are some questions to think about. Just think about the answers, don't answer/comment on the questions in a post.

1) Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?

2) Where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down?

3) Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based on a book?

4) Protestants claim that Jesus categorically condemned all oral tradition (Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8?13). If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them that to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they "sit on Moses' seat" (Matt 23:2)?

5) Protestants claim that St. Paul categorically condemned all oral tradition (Col 2:8). If so, why does he tell the Thessalonians to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thes 2:15) and praises the Corinthians because they "hold firmly to the traditions" (1 Cor 11:2)?

6) If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola Scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God's Word (Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14 15)?

7) Where in the Bible is God's Word restricted only to what is written down?

8) How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?

9) On what authority, or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?

10) Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible?

11) How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?

12) How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the letters of St. Paul, who wrote to first-century congregations and individuals, are meant to be read by us 2000 years later as Scripture?

13) Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?

14) Most of the books of the New Testament were written to address very specific problems in the early Church, and none of them are a systematic presentation of Christian faith and theology. On what biblical basis do Protestants think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings?

15) If the books of the New Testament are "self-authenticating" through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?

16) If the meaning of the Bible is so clear, so easily interpreted, and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it rightly, then why are there over 33,000+ Protestant denominations, and millions of individual Protestants, all interpreting the Bible differently?

17) Who may authoritatively arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible?

18) Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?

19) Protestants usually claim that they all agree "on the important things." Who is able to decide authoritatively what is important in the Christian faith and what is not?

20) How did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture?

21) Who in the Church had the authority to determine which books belonged in the New Testament canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians? If nobody has this authority, then can I remove or add books to the canon on my own authority?

22) Why do Protestant scholars recognize the early Church councils at Hippo and Carthage as the first instances in which the New Testament canon was officially ratified, but ignore the fact that those same councils ratified the Old Testament canon used by the Catholic Church today but abandoned by Protestants at the Reformation?

23) Why do Protestants follow post-apostolic Jewish decisions on the boundaries of the Old Testament canon, rather than the decision of the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

24) How were the bishops at Hippo and Carthage able to determine the correct canon of Scripture, in spite of the fact that they believed all the distinctively Catholic doctrines such as the apostolic succession of bishops, the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, etc?

25) If Christianity is a "book religion," how did it flourish during the first 1500 years of Church history when the vast majority of people were illiterate?

26) If sola Scriptura is so solid and biblically based, why has there never been a full treatise written in its defense since the phrase was coined in the Reformation?

27) If Jesus intended for Christianity to be exclusively a "religion of the book," why did He wait 1400 years before showing somebody how to build a printing press?

28) If the early Church believed in sola Scriptura, why do the creeds of the early Church always say "we believe in the Holy Catholic Church," and not "we believe in Holy Scripture"?

29) If the Bible is as clear as Martin Luther claimed, why was he the first one to interpret it the way he did and why was he frustrated at the end of his life that "there are now as many doctrines as there are heads"?

30) The time interval between the Resurrection and the establishment of the New Testament canon in AD 382 is roughly the same as the interval between the arrival of the Mayflower in America and the present day. Therefore, since the early Christians had no defined New Testament for almost four hundred years, how did they practice sola Scriptura?

31) If the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth, why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?

32) If the unity of Christians was meant to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God, what does the ever-increasing fragmentation of Protestantism say to the world?

33) Hebrews 13:17 says, "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you." What is the expiration date of this verse? When did it become okay not only to disobey the Church's leaders, but to rebel against them and set up rival churches?

34) The Koran explicitly claims divine inspiration, but the New Testament books do not. How do you know that the New Testament books are nevertheless inspired, but the Koran is not?

 

Here are questions to answer for yourself - don't post anything -

#1. Why should someone reject the clear teaching of Acts 17:11 showing that even an "APOSTLE" is judged "sola scriptura" and THIS is done EVEN in the worst case scenario - by NON Christians!!

Should they "reject this scripture" simply because they have a bias for tradition over what they are reading in the text?

Should they "reject" this scripture because the know that to accept such a model would be to "reject" many of their own man-made-traditions.

#2. Why should a person reject the clear teaching in Mark 7 condemning the "traditions of man" taught "as doctrine" EVEN in the case of the MAGESTERIUM of the ONE TRUE church of Christ's dahy - the ONE started by Christ HIMSELF at Sinai!!

Should they "reject this" becuase it shows that violation of the text of scripture by tradtion ALWAYS means that "tradition is in error" and by accepting such a truth their own man-made-traditions would be at risk?

No need to answer via post -- just "think about it".

#3. When Christ said "Man does not live by Bread alone but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God" was He in fact endorsing Scripture - "God's WORD" ?? IF so - why argue so strong AGAINST it??

#4. When Paul said that scripture IS the standard for doctrine teaching and instruction in 2 Tim3 -- is there some reason that we need to squirm out of it?

If so - how many can you think of?

#5. List the many different ways you can think of to squirm out of each one the text "details" listed above.

#6. Paul claims in 2Thess 2 that the NT authors are divinely inspired giving to mankind "the Word of God" -- should we "ignore that" and just "pretend" that the Koran is on an "equal footing"?? Think about reasons that you might want to argue such an absurd "Koran=NT" argument in an effort to minimize the importance of the NT text and elevate the traditions of man!

No need to post - just think about how you might do that.

#7. Think about ways that Heb 13:17 could be used against the authority of Scripture being USED as we see scripture used in Mark 7 by Christ. Imagine ways in which "respect and honor" for Christian leaders could be bent and twisted into "replacing scripture with man-made-tradition". Imagine arguments you might make in that case. You know - as in the previous post.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The word canon means “measuring rod” or “standard.” By “canon of the Bible” I mean the authoritative list of inspired books that make up the Bible. Since the Bible didn’t fall preprinted from heaven, where did it come from? How do we know we can trust everything in it?

HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT BELONGS IN THE BIBLE?
Many Protestants claim the Bible is the sole rule of faith. If true, Protestants should be able to answer clearly: “How do we know for sure what belongs in the Bible?” If unable to answer this question, they can’t distinguish the inspired words of God from the ordinary words of men. They cannot use the Bible as authoritative (much less solely authoritative) unless they can prove that everything in it is trustworthy. Thus, the question of the canon of the Bible is crucial for “Bible only” Christians.

Sadly, “Bible only” Christians have no way of answering the question, “How do we know what belongs in the Bible?” by using only the Bible. The Bible does not have an inspired table of contents. Nowhere does any single book (Genesis or Exodus), or any combination of books (Genesis through Revelation), tell us what books belong in the Bible. If we rely on the Bible alone as the sole authority in all religious matters, and the Bible nowhere tells us what belongs in it, then the Bible alone doctrine has been refuted. For how can we rely on the Bible alone when the Bible alone doesn’t tells us what to use as the Bible?

To put it another way, the “Bible only” idea claims that the Bible contains all essential religious truths. However, the Bible doesn’t tell us the official list of books that make up the Bible. This list of inspired books is an essential religious truth not contained in the Bible. Therefore, at least one essential religious truth—the contents of the Bible—is found outside the Bible. Thus, since the Bible does not contain all essential religious truths, the “Bible only” idea is false.

“How do you know what belongs in the Bible?” With this question, Protestants are evasive, not wanting to admit that their trust in the Bible depends on the authoritative witness of the Catholic Church. To his credit, Protestant reformer Martin Luther recognized this: “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.”

 

You said I said that. Please quote me. You are quoting what you think I said, when in reality I did not say that.
In Mark 2, the Jews were not speaking. It was Jesus that was speaking.
DHK

 

This is the most ridiculous, but cleverly concocted argument I've ever seen in this issue. So you're taking the history of pre-printing world and using it to try to prove that some bloated magisterium is what God really wanted all along. What you really are arguing for is for a bunch of illiterate, uneducated masses to have absolute control over! The magisterium could have thrown the Book of Mormon or the Koran in there, and the people would be none the wiser. And then we wonder why the "Christian" world has rejected the faith in the modern age, and try to blame everything on the Renaissance, or some other similar scapegoat.
What you're saying would be like a father abusing a child, till the child grows up and rebels and leaves, and the father justifies himself by saying "But if God had desired me to not treat him that way, and for him to be independant, He would not have made him so helpless all those years". But this was NOT God's desire for the Christian era.

You forget that while everyone may not have had a copy of the Bible, or could read, still, they were to gather together and READ it in a group setting where it was present. That is how people knew the scriptures in the ancient times. It was when men rose up (Acts 20:29-30, 3 John 9, 10, 2 Peter 2:1-3, 2 Tim.4:1-4 Matthew 24:5) and took control and eventually formed a magisterium that started putting their own interpretations on the scriptures, and then deliberately kept it out of reach of the average "layperson", that the situation you described developed.

And the "Gates ahall never prevail, and that was the only body that we can trace all the way back, so this is it" does not justify everything it teaches as "must be the apostolic tradition whether it's in the scriptures or not". The Body of Christ that the gates would never prevail against was "wherever two or three are gathered in my name", not some powerful magisterium (which eventually became totally wed to the heathen state!). You and the others speak of the "LIVING Body of Christ; the LIVING community", but this living body is the PEOPLE, not a religious state government. God inspired the entire Church to recognize the true Canon, and in spite of themselves. If it was just the tradition of the magisterium, with doctrines like the near divinity of Mary being apart of it, then books such as The Gospel of Mary and the Acts of Paul and Thecla would be in there, because they conform to your "traditions".

And still, all was not well in the centuries before the Reformation, where you had the Waldensians who challenged the corrupt system, and then the East and West split, both claiming to be the pillar and foundation of truth.

You want some absolute unquestionable authority, where whatever some leader says goes and that is is; and that is dangerous in the hands of sinful men, as has been proven time and time again through Church and secular history; and no, they do not cease being sinful men when they become apart of the magisterium (especially given the worldly powerbase it is). All of the schism is inevitable given man's fallen condition (something works-based religions completely forget about). Every man shall be judged for what they taught, and for rising up and creating schism. But your group is yet anopther out of all of these using different means to prove it is the one.

 

You said I said that. Please quote me. You are quoting what you think I said, when in reality I did not say that.
In Mark 2, the Jews were not speaking. It was Jesus that was speaking.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Fair enough - I will quote you and provide the link. I hesistate since I know that under normal circumstances you would like to argue in favor of the sola scriptura position as do I.

</font>[/QUOTE]