Replies

Was the Bible that Luther received inerrant (without error)? If no, then Luther's doctrine of "The Bible Alone" is self-refuting.

Not so because the writers of the Bible never instructed men to add tradition to Scripture.

So you are saying that the Bible that Luther inherited didn't contain errors?

If yes, then you have two logical problems that are fatal to Luther's theory of "the Bible alone."

First, Luther declared several Old Testament books to be non-canonical. Did "the Bible alone" tell him to remove several books from itself? Or did Luther consider himself to be an authority greater than the Bible alone? For Luther's Bible to be inerrant, he would have had to have acted infallibly in determining the canon of Scripture.

(Interestingly, R.C. Sproul recognizes this problem, and has declared the Bible to be "a fallible collection of infallible books." Or something.)

So rather than the Church of Christ acting infallibly in determining the canon of Scripture, Luther must have acted infallibly in determining the canon of Scripture, if Luther's canon of Scripture is to be considered inerrant. And if Luther held the rest of the Bible to be inerrant, he would have had to have argued that the Church that wrote and preserved Scripture up until his time had acted infallibly until his day.

How could Luther rashly reject the authority of the Church that had written, preserved, and canonized Scripture up until his time, unless he considered his teaching authority to be superior to the Church and Scripture?

Secondly, if the Bible that Luther inherited didn't contain errors, then the earthly source that he received it from acted infallibly in writing, preserving and canonizing it. And since this process occurred over many centuries, this earthly source acted infallibly over the course of many centuries.

What could this earthly source be except Christ's Church?

If you put aside Luther's novel teaching of "the Bible alone" and look at the argument objectively, you will see that the logic is inescapable. It's a simple, insurmoutable, dilemma.

And wholly appropriate to consider on Protestant Revolution Day.

Did "the Bible alone" tell him to remove several books from itself? Or did Luther consider himself to be an authority greater than the Bible alone?

God's Word is Holy Spirit inspired and 'Who inspired it's writings', also inspired Luther. God uses people (their destiny) to get His work done on this earth. Like he did with Abraham, Moses, Esther, Mary, Joseph, Paul, David etc, etc., etc.

"I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

God already knew satan would attempt to hijack/destroy HIS church. And, then we have this Scripture. "Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.." Mark 7:13 A satanic tactic on HIS Word for His Church.

For Luther's Bible to be inerrant, he would have had to have acted infallibly in determining the canon of Scripture.

Again, he was Holy Spirit inspired.

If you put aside Luther's novel teaching of "the Bible alone" and look at the argument objectively, you will see that the logic is inescapable. It's a simple, insurmoutable, dilemma.

Logic? God uses the foolish things to confound the wise. 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence'.

When the children of Israel were slaves in Egypt, God didn’t send an army to deliver them, He sent a single man. But a single man of God was shown to be greater than the most powerful kingdom on Earth.