Arguments in "Bible Only is dumb" are dumb (and ignorant):Ignorant argument #ONE Did Our Lord write any part of the New Testament or command His Apostles to do so? Our Lord Himself never wrote a line, nor is there any record that He ordered his Apostles to write;
Yes. And since it is the Spirit of Christ that inspired the Scriptures, and the Spirit only speaks what the Lord Jesus wills, then indeed the Lord wrote all of the New Testament and commanded Apostles to do so
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. (John 16:12-15)
I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. (Revelation 1:10-11)
Ignorant COMMENT #1: If reading the Bible were a necessary means of salvation, Our Lord would have made that statement and also provided the necessary means for his followers.
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:25-27)
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31)
Ignorant argument # TWO How many of the Apostles or others actually wrote what is now in the New Testament? A Few of the Apostles wrote part of Our Lord's teachings, as they themselves expressly stated; i.e., Peter, Paul, James, John, Jude, Matthew, also Sts. Mark and Luke. None of the others wrote anything, so far as is recorded
How many writings of the Apostles or others are necessary to establish consensus on doctrine and in judgments? Seeing as,
In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. (2 Corinthians 13:1)
He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: (Hebrews 10:28)
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; (Luke 1:1-2)
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. (Matthew 18:16)
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. (Galatians 2:9)Ignorant COMMENT #2: If the Bible privately interpreted was to be a Divine rule of Faith, the apostles would have been derelict in their duty when instead, some of them adopted preaching only.
Rather, apostles would have been derelict in their duty if they did not rely upon the written word in preaching, which provided the epistemological prophetic and doctrinal foundation for the NT, and the Lord validated His ministry by (along with miracles) and opened the minds of the disciple to.
Meaning the apostles would have been derelict in their duty by not doing as the leaders Peter and Paul did, affirming the written word as being the more sure word of prophecy, (2 Peter 1:19) and which "reasoned out of the Scriptures" (Acts 17:2) as the Spirit of Christ affirmed those who tested their preaching by the Scriptures. (Acts 17:11) And contrary to sola ecclesia, in which the word of God consists of and means whatever Rome says, according to her interpretation, which is base upon the unscriptural premise that since men such as apostles could preach as wholly God-inspired, then her uninspired popes and councils also are to be believed like they were, if Sola Scriptura meant that that the Bible personally interpreted was to be a infallible Divine rule of Faith, unreprovable by "synods and councils" who are to ministerially "determine controversies of faith" (Westminster Confession XXXI) then the the RC comment/polemic might have some merit. The the magisterial office of church is essential to settle disputes, in subjection of Scripture, with its veracity being relative to its degree of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and not as superior to it. contrary to the Catholic premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity (and basically as in cults).
Ignorant argument # THREE Was it a teaching or a Bible-reading Church that Christ founded? The Protestant Bible expressly states that Christ founded a teaching Church, which existed before any of the New Testament books were written.
Amazing! Scripture must only consist of the New Testament books if this polemic against the primacy of Scripture is to have any validity! Instead, an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.)
For the Hebrew Scriptures testify to Jesus being the promised scapegoat and perfect atonement, and the basis for the teachings of Christ and that of His church. And thus as said, Scripture provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church.
Which established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the magisterial stewards of Scripture, with even the veracity of apostolic preaching being subject to examination by Scripture.
For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation of His Word. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15, 18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44, 45; John 5:46, 47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2, 11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15)
And thus as abundantly evidenced , 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. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.
Moreover, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God.
And the establishment of an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings by the time of Christ also shows that both men and writings of God could be recognized without an infallible magisterium - contrary to the premise of Catholicism, and indeed The church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined, (Mt. 23:2; cf. Dt. 17:8-13) which judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not, (Mk. 11:27-33) as the historical magisterial head over Israel which was the historical instrument and steward of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2, 3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33, 34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27, 44; Jn. 5:36, 39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Ignorant argument # FOUR Was there any drastic difference between what Our Lord© commanded the Apostles to teach and what the New Testament contains? Our Lord commanded his Apostles to teach all things whatsoever He had commanded; (Matt. 28-20); His Church must necessarily teach everything; (John 14-26); however, the Protestant Bible itself teaches that the Bible does not contain all of Our Lord's doctrines: John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus...John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did
No, the Protestant Bible itself does NOT teach that the Bible does not contain all of Our Lord's doctrines, and there is NO doctrinal difference between what Our Lord (which applies to only a very few RCs) commanded the Apostles to teach and what the New Testament contains. For while there is more information (John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus...John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did) than even what the OT contains as well as NT - yet Christ opened the minds of the disciples to understanding Scripture, not oral tradition - and there is more that can be known of "many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book." Yet "these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:30-31)
And as said, while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither popes and councils can claim to do so. Thus rather than oral tradition being the assured infallible word of God based upon the Catholic presumption that the word of God only consists of and means whatever she says (though the RCC and the EO have conflicts in this), it remains that God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation if His Word, and the written word is the assured infallible word of God.
Ignorant COMMENT: How would it have been possible for second century Christians to practice Our Lord's religion, if private interpretation of an unavailable and only partial account of Christ's teaching were indispensable?
Because contrary to RC ignorance, most of Scripture already was established as being so, and men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither popes and councils can claim to do so, and contrary to RC distinctive teachings, by those who "received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11) could see that they were!
Ignorant argument # FIVE Does the New Testament expressly refer to Christ's "unwritten word"? The New Testament itself teaches that it does not contain all that Our Lord did or, consequently, all that He taught.
Which is simply a repetition of the previous refuted polemic.
Ignorant COMMENT: Since the Bible is incomplete, it needs something else to supplement it; i.e., the spoken or historically recorded word which we call Tradition.
Since the OT was incomplete, it needs something else to supplement it; i.e., the wholly God-inspired spoken or then written recorded word which we call Scripture, versus the uninspired presumptions of Catholosicism. By which 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, and presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals.
Ignorant argument # SIX What became of the unwritten truths which Our Lord and the Apostles taught? The Church has carefully conserved this "word of mouth" teaching by historical records called Tradition. Even the Protestant Bible teaches that many Christian truths were to be handed down by word of mouth. COMMENT: Hence not only Scripture but other sources of information must be consulted to get the whole of Christ's teaching. Religions founded on "the Bible only" are therefore necessarily incomplete. Ignorant COMMENT: Hence not only Scripture but other sources of information must be consulted to get the whole of Christ's teaching. Religions founded on "the Bible only" are therefore necessarily incomplete.
What unwritten truths of doctrine? (John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus...John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did. The premise that there is a body of the unwritten wholly God-inspired doctrinal truths which the Lord and His prophets taught is the kind of presumption that is typical of cults. And which premise Orthodox Jews presume in rejecting the NT. Religions NOT founded on "the Bible only" (properly understood) are therefore necessarily incorrect.
Ignorant argument # SEVEN Between what years were the first and last books of the New Testament written? This first book, St. Matthew's Gospel, was not written until about ten years after Our Lord's Ascension. St. John's fourth gospel and Apocalypse or Book of Revelations were not written until about 100 A. D. Ignorant COMMENT: Imagine how the present-day privately interpreted "Bible-only" theory would have appeared at a time when the books of the New Testament were not only unavailable, but most of them had not yet been written.
Wrong. All books except Revelation were most likely written within one 70-year generation of the Lord's resurrection and all were penned before the death of the last apostle. And as said, while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither popes and councils can claim to do so, thus the premise that the preaching of the latter (which did not exist early on) was and is the assured word of God, is fallacious.
. Ignorant argument # EIGHT When was the New Testament placed under one cover? In 397 A. D. by the Council of Carthage, from which it follows that non-Catholics have derived their New Testament from the Catholic Church; no other source was available. Ignorant COMMENT: Up to 397 A. D., some of the Christians had access to part of the New Testament; into this situation, how would the "Bible-only privately interpreted" theory have fitted?
And just how much did Adam and Eve need to know for obedience to God? Likewise those prior to Moses, and those prior to other prophets, and the Lord Jesus? God always provided enough revelation for salvation and obedience to God. But He also can provide more grace. And which includes preachers of the Scriptures.
Only if Sola Scriptura actually taught that one must have his own copy of Scripture and be able to read it in order to be save and grown in grace would this polemic have some validity, versus SS teaching what Scripture is and provides (being the sole sure supreme sufficient body of Truth, in its formal and broader senses) , whereby what one "may" (see WC #6 here: not necessarily will or equally can without helps) be able to apprehend what is taught therein.
Thus SS preachers can preach salvation and disciple others who do not even know how to read, and even enjoin "stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:15) under the premise that, as with the apostles, what was taught is Scriptural. In contrast, the premise of Rome for its veracity is her own claim to being so, as if, like men such as the apostles who could speak as wholly inspired of God, yet neither popes and councils can claim to do so.
Ignorant NINE Why so much delay in compiling the New Testament? Prior to 397 A. D., the various books of the New Testament were not under one cover, but were in the custody of different groups or congregations....COMMENT: This again shows how utterly impossible was the "Bible-only" theory, at least up to 400 A. D.
Same argument, same refutation.
Ignorant argument # TEN What other problem confronted those who wished to determine the contents of the New Testament? Before the inspired books were recognized as such, many other books had been written and by many were thought to be inspired; hence the Catholic Church made a thorough examination of the whole question; biblical scholars spent years in the Holy Land studying the original languages of New Testament writings. Ignorant COMMENT: According to the present-day "Bible-only" theory, in the above circumstances, it would also have been necessary for early Christians to read all the doubtful books and, by interior illumination, judge which were and which were not divinely inspired.
There was also a fluid canon to some degree among the Jews in the time of Christ, but it is best indicated that the Palestinian canon - which even Catholic sources affirm was the same as the Prot. OT canon - (and preceded an expanded LXX) was what Christ referred to as "all the Scriptures." (LK. 24:27) Likewise "all the Scriptures" existed to the end of the 1st century which, as with the Hebrew Scriptures, discerning souls perceived as being of God, as they also did in perceiving men of God as being so.
Thus the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined, (Mt. 23:2; cf. Dt. 17:8-13) which judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not, (Mk. 11:27-33) as the historical magisterial head over Israel which was the historical instrument and steward of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2, 3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33, 34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27, 44; Jn. 5:36, 39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Which is in contrast to the Cath. premise, in which recognition of which writings are of God requires faith in the magisterial judges and stewards of such.
“the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium)
“People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high.” ( Cardinal Avery Dulles)
Thus in apologetics toward the unconverted,in RC theology it is taught that Scripture is to be appealed to as merely reliable historical source, which hopefully helps the potential convert to place faith in Rome, and thereby know what is of God.
it should be premised that when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility)Thus it is is presumed that should be able to discern the RCC as being of God, but not wholly God-inspired Scripture. And which , establishment, as with men of God, was essentially due to the uniquely Divine qualities and attestation, and the consensus of the people who were regenerated by faith in its gospel, with freedom to read it, contrary to much of Rome's history.
Ignorant argument # ELEVEN Who finally did decide which books were inspired and therefore belonged to the New Testament? Shortly before 400 A. D. a General Council of the Catholic Church, using the infallible authority which Christ had given to His own divine institution, finally decided which books really belonged to the New Testament and which did not.
Pure propaganda, in ignorance or denial of history. In reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon — after the death of Luther. Thus Luther was no maverick in this issue, which was not part of his excommunication by Rome, but had substantial RC support for his non-binding personal opinion (as he expressed it was) on the canon, being just one of many Catholic scholars to express doubt or disagreement before Trent. See Luther and the Canon of Scripture for more.
In addition, what I said in response to argument # EIGHT applies here also.
Ignorant COMMENT: In view of these historical facts, it is difficult to see how non-Catholics can deny that it was from the (Roman) Catholic Church that they received the New Testament.
Which statement actually condemns Rome since it contradicts the very gospel and revelation it cannot claim to write, but by arguing that the judge of which writings were of God and the steward of them means that she is to be submitted to in all her other judgments (which is the argument being the assertion here, then it effectively invalidates the NT church! "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:2)
For as said, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined, (Mt. 23:2; cf. Dt. 17:8-13) which judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not, (Mk. 11:27-33) as the historical magisterial head over Israel which was the historical instrument and steward of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2, 3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33, 34; Jer. 7:23)
Thus, based upon the Catholic premise, then 1st c. souls should have submitted to the judgment of those who sat in the seat of Moses as regarding who was of God, rather than following itinerant prophets and teachers and their leader whom the historical magisterium rejected! Thus the NT church has effectively been invalidated the church under this presumptuous premise.
Ignorant argument # TWELVE Why is it impossible for modern non-Catholics to check over the work done by the Church previous to 400. A. D.? The original writings were on frail material called papyrus, which had but temporary enduring qualities. While the books judged to be inspired by the Catholic Church were carefully copied by her monks, those rejected at that time were allowed to disintegrate, for lack of further interest in them. . COMMENT. What then is left for non-Catholics, except to trust the Catholic Church to have acted under divine inspiration; if at that time, why not now?
Same argument, same invalid reasoning, while even the final settling of the canon by decree of Trent can only imagine infallibility (which is based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults) and cannot claim divine inspiration even in Catholic thelogy.
God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document. (Catholic Encyclopedia > Infallibility: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)
snip
The Bible teaches that the rulers of Christ's Church have authority which must be obeyed in matters of religion.
As like was enjoined toward the scribes and Pharisees, (Mt. 23:2) and is toward civil rulers, (Rm. 13:1-7) which thus requires dissent from valid authorities (which Rome is not to those without), and the poster of this prevaricating polemic is himself in schismatic dissent from the living magisterium of the church calling itself the Catholic church, and acting contrary to the broad requirements of submission many past popes. We who
I have spent enough time and energy on this fallacious failing polemic, in which none of the RC arguments have or can stand, and as typical or the same as iterations which have been refuted before, by the grace of God. As here:
10-Point+ Biblical Refutation of RC Attempted Refutation of Sola Scriptura
14 questions as regards sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia
Step-by-Step Refutation of Dave Armstrong vs. Sola Scriptura