Replies

Then answer these simple questions:

They have been, and or similar editions of your poorly worded strawman polemic in refutation, even myself , for which i am still waiting for a reply, as well as by such as aMorePerfectUnion, who also has been waiting for a reply for months. But you just blithely go on parroting the same ignorant superficially reasoned specious polemic!

Nevertheless, lets takes this from the top again.

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

You mean to the exclusion of any place for reason, the leading and illumination of the Spirit, the magisterial office, oral preaching, knowledge of history, the light of nature, etc.? which is not what SS validly means. Thus this is strawman #1.

Westminster states

“all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all, what is necessary is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, and Scripture is such that “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means [in which the church is a part], may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

...we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

, “It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions...”- http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm and general obedience to such is enjoined, as it is to the civil powers that be, (Rm. 13:1-7)

And if you mean where did Jesus give instructions that what only is written in a book/body of sacred wholly inspired writings is the ultimate transcendent standard for faith, He did so from the beginning to the end, from defeating the devil by quoting "it is written," (Mt. 4:1-11) not oral tradition, to repeatedly invoking what it written as being the word of God which must be obeyed, and in giving its full meaning, and in validation of His Truth claims, such as that He came to fulfill the Law, and that whoever breaks the lest of these commandments (not traditions) shall be least in the kingdom of God, and calling souls to accountability for not obeying or knowing the Scriptures, not tradition, (5:17,18,33,38,43; 8:4; 21:4,5,13,16,42; 22:24,29,31,32,37,39,43,44; 23:35;24:15; 26:24,31,54,56) to expounding "unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" after His resurrection, "that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me," (Luke 24:44) not tradition, and then "opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures," (Luke 24:45) - not tradition.

Note that none of this was in exclusion to preaching of Scriptural Truths, or of additional revelation given by the Lord - which is provided for in Scripture - but the veracity of which was subject to what was written, as are any Truth claims today.

Nor does SS mean that the written word of God was always the supreme standard, nor that it had the degree of formal sufficiency a complete canon would, which is what SS pertains to based upon manifest Scriptural principal, in which as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims.

For before Moses penned any Scripture then God directly spoke in a quite limited degree to a quite limited amount of people, who were established as being of God in the light of their virtuous qualities and supernatural attestation.

Moreover, souls can even do by nature the things contained in the Law without Scripture or the church, as the essence of the Law is known innately. (Rm. 2:14)

But God gives more light as souls obey the light they have, (Lk. 8:18; Jn. 12:35) - and darkness to those who will not (Jn. 12:36-41) and to whomsoever much grace is given in blessing then of them much is required. (Lk. 12:48) And God having given the Law thru Moses, as the word of God/the Lord was normally written (even if sometimes first being spoken), then as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced

And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

Note that a SS preacher could preach to souls even without Him or any of them having a Bible, but the veracity of what was preached must rest upon Scriptural substantiation, which is how the church began, versus the novel premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility (EPMI) as per Rome.

Thus the primacy aspect of Scripture is incontrovertible, while its related sufficiency aspect pertain to its formal and material aspects, of which more should be said as we go on.

• 2) Where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?

The is strawman #2, for the question now becomes, where did Jesus tell His apostles to that only what He personally said to them is the basis for doctrine? Where does Scripture say this? Or where does SS hold to this basis or that only what is explicitly stated can be the basis for doctrine?

You tried this red-letter hermeneutic before and were refuted into silence, and it is no more valid now then it is then. Operating out of this hermeneutic we must hold that since Christ never personally explicitly told His apostles that extortion, wife beating, cannibalism etc. was ever wrong then it has no basis as doctrine.

However, the Lord did tell His apostles to write things down, (Rv. 1:11) and the whole NT is a result of His telling the Holy Spirit what to inspired the writers of Holy Writ to write. (Jn. 16:13,14)

Moreover, the Lord invoked the Scripture as a tripartite body, (Lk. 24:44) and thus upheld the formation of a canon, and which is the only comprehensive objective (in form) transcendent body of Truth which the Lord states is wholly inspired and thus assured word of God. Which word is uniquely alive and powerful. (Heb. 4:12)

And that is instrumentally able to make one wise unto salvation, and to make man perfect, thoroughly furnished unto ever good work.

All of which is never said of tradition nor the church, which is the alternative to SS, in which the church of Rome alone (sola ecclesia, sola Roma) is the supreme sufficient standard on Truth.

In addition to Scripture providing for assured recognition of both men and writings of God, and thus for a canon, it also provides for the Lord "speaking" to believers too (which many SS preachers hope for during the offering!), and I also believe in the possibility of the Lord doing so thru spiritual gifts. But which the veracity of which is subject to Scripture, and which does add to its canon or militate against it alone being the supreme and sufficient wholly inspired word of God. For is anything is, it is Scripture, not the magisterium of Rome.

Thus the question is, Where did Jesus tell His apostles or anyone personally or via His Spirit that whatever the church would speak universally on faith and morals would be without error, and the wholly inspired word of God???

The silence is deafening.

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

Similar to the strawman above, this is based upon the false premise that only what apostles wrote is the basis for doctrine, and that compiled writings as the basis for doctrine is to the exclusion of any use of reason, the leading and illumination of the Spirit, the light of nature, the magisterium and the church, which is not what SS validly means. And which has been dealt with above. But the question for RCs is, Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based upon what a infallible church says being doctrinally supreme over what Scripture says? For which Rome may claim she does not contradict Scripture, in reality Scripture (and tradition and history) only assuredly authoritatively consist of and mean what Rome autocratically says, and what she says is that it cannot contradict her.

Nothing new here:

Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:48-49)

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

This esp. pertains to the sufficiency of Scripture, and which is based upon the strawman that only what is explicitly taught in Scripture can be the basis for doctrine, to the exclusion of what is bsed upon precept, precedent and principal.

Left to the only what is explicit hermeneutic, we cannot exclude such a thing as cannibalism (such as they agree to eat whoever naturally dies), for eating human flesh is nowhere explicitly forbidden. However, as "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things" (Genesis 9:3) is manifest to refer to animals and plant food, and cannibalism is only shown in a negative light, then based upon what is manifest in precept then in principal we see that the practice of cannibalism is wrong.

However, as the overall purpose of the Law is to save life, not destroy it, (cf. Mk. 3:4) then based upon that principal then it may be allowed that in dire situations (as that of the Andes survivors), then it may be allowed.

Support for a list of books is easier, as it testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to a body of writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture.

Support for this list is based upon the inspired infallible word of God, and its veracity has the same basis as for both writings and men of God being recognized as such, even Christ and thus the church. Which was not that of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility (EPMI) as per Rome, but in light of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Assurance of Truth in Scripture was never on the basis of EPMI, but was based upon heavenly qualities and attestation.

Thus if a number of books are established as Scripture then so is a list. But this list need not be inspired and ensuredly infallible anymore than any church teaching is. Even Rome's so-called "infallible teachings are not inspired of God as Scripture is, while RC assurance of her claim to be infallible is itself based upon the premise that she is infallible.

For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

But which EPMI premise is a novel invention, unseen and unnecessary and never promised in Scripture, but which is RC doctrine is erroneously based upon the false premise that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

But which, taken to its logical conclusion, effectively nukes the NT church, as those who defend this have been shown (and can be).

But since RCs demand we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible, the question is Where in the Bible or decrees of Rome do we find an inspired and infallible list of all infallible teachings, and on what magisterial level out of 3 or 4) others belong to (and thus what level of assent is required)?

If a a table of contents is necessary for a SS adherent, then this inspired and infallible list of the magisterial level all RC teachings belong to should be necessary for a RC seeing as what Rome say is his supreme authority, though implicit assent is generally what is exhorted to all Rome officially teaches.

Thus your polemic is really one against both a SS strawman, and argument against Rome when one considers the alternative.