Replies

No one can fault the Protestants for their love of Jesus and the Bible, but ultimately their approach is like swearing allegence to the Constitution while denying the authority of the Supreme Court.

And who made the Supreme Court the final authority on the Constitution? The Supreme Court usurped that authority in Marbury v. Madison. They did not derive that authority from the Constitution. The fact is that the Supreme Court derives its authority from the Constitution, not the other way around.

Likewise, any authority that the Roman Catholic Church or any other Church would have would derive from Scripture. Any authority usurped from outside the authority of Scripture would be invalid. Traditions not found in scripture are as invalid as the Court's usurpation of the legislative perogative in cases such as Roe v. Wade.

Jesus appealed to scripture as his authority. He chastised the Pharisees (the religious leaders of his time) for adding traditions to the scriptures which were not scriptural. He told them that their traditions had made the word of God of no effect.

Jesus appealed to scripture as his authority.

Then where does the Tanahk explain the Sermon on the Mount, His addition to the "Shema," or His discourse on divorce?

Conflating particulars of the analogy with what was being analogized simply dodges the fact the Protestant church has no means of settling disputes.

And while you're perfectly welcome to pontificate on what is and isn't valid from Scripture, I see in David's treatment of Saul, both a sound rebuttal to your contentions and a guide for our comportment toward our own Supreme Court.

The problem is that we would not have a New Testament Canon, nor know what it was, if it weren't for the Traditions of the Church.

Protestants are forced to either recognize the value of the Church's Tradition in determining the canon, or to ignore the thorny question of the canon.

The Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and of life; that does not make our own personal interpretations of the Scripture infallible, however, nor does this make the Bible the only rule of faith and of life. Sola Scriptura, not Solo Scriptura..

Personally, I argue that the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds predate and are contemporary with the formation of the NT canon, respectively, and the Didache and 1Clement were written within a generation of the New Testament. These sources help to define what the NT means.

Likewise, any authority that the Roman Catholic Church or any other Church would have would derive from Scripture. Any authority usurped from outside the authority of Scripture would be invalid.

The authority of the Church comes from Scripture. The Catholic Church gave us the canon of Scripture, Martin Luther came up with the abridged edition which most protestants are familiar with. Here's some questions I would like answered: By what authority could Luther claim to determine canon? And if he could determine canon, what's to stop anyone from adding or subtracting whatever books they like? Why should people be allowed to determine which books they will recognize as Scripture?