Book Review: 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

Vivificat - from Contemplation to Action ^ | July 3, 2012 | TDJ

[Teófilo]

Another nail in the coffin of the foundational Protestant dogma

Sola scriptura is dead, or at least is undead, a zombie still stalking the darkened hallways of Protestantism. Many well-meaning Protestant Christians don’t see the zombie-dogma for what it is; instead, they choose to see it as a being of light. My friend Dave Armstrong has returned to blow the old decrepit sola scriptura monsters one at a time in his latest work, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura.

Let’s recall the definition of the sola scriptura dogma – yes, it is a dogma – as understood by Norman Geisler, a recognized Protestant authority Dave quotes in his work:

By sola scriptura orthodox Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals)… (p.16)

Geisler, and other authorities Dave quotes, further explain that other authorities exist, but that these are of secondary importance. Geisler also defends what he calls the perspicuity of Holy Writ, which means that anyone can understand the basic truths of Scripture: the plain things are the main things and the main things are the plain things, Geisler states. (p.17). As a true analyst, Dave separated the sola scriptura dogma into its constituents claims, found out its contents, examined its individual parts, and studied the structure of sola scriptura as whole. He found them defective and insufficient to expound and explain the full spectrum of Christian claims.

Dave kills the sola scriptura zombie by selecting 100 verses from Scripture contradicting this central Protestant claim. I guess he selected 100 verses because the number “100” gives the reader a sense of exhaustive answer and completion, not because there are only 100 verses that should make all sincere Protestant Christian at least uncomfortable with the teaching. In fact, Dave is the author of another related work, 501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?, which is useful if you need another 401 arguments to kill the sola scriptura zombie dead.

100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura. is a distillation of the 501 Biblical Arguments… in a more manageable, less overwhelming fashion for the beginning reader. It’s 133 pages in length and divided into two parts. In Part 1 Dave discusses the binding authority of Tradition, as substantiated in Scripture, and in Part 2 he discusses the binding authority of the Church, again from Scripture. The result must be uncontestable to the sincere Protestant Christian as well as eye opening to the full range of deeds and wonders the Incarnation of the Word of God brought to history.Will the sola scriptura zombie really die after Dave’s work? This is a senseless question because the zombie is already dead. It’s kept ambulating by strings pulled from the most diehard of its followers. Those strings must be cut by the individual, sincere Protestant Christian himself. Dave Armstrong’s work, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura. not only blows the zombie of sola scriptura away, he also provides the truth-searcher with the scissors to cut off the strings.

[Cronos]

iscool: We have to have a standard with which to prove things...The standard is the scriptures.

Really, iscool do you believe in Jesus Christ as Lord, God and Savior, our Triune God with the Father and the Holy Spirit?

Do you believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth of all that is seen and unseen?
Do you believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father?
Do you believe that through Jesus Christ all things were made?
Do you believe that for us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered died, and was buried. On the third day He rose in fulfillment of the Scriptures; He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father?

Do you believe that He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end?

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, One God, with the Father and the Son?

flip-flopping between modalism etc. is flip-flopping

[Cronos]

you, Sentinel are utterly wrong on that

Let's count them:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
3. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them
4. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain
5. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
6. Honour thy father and thy mother
7. Thou shalt not kill
8. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
9. Thou shalt not steal
10. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
11. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house
12. thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife
13. nor his manservant, nor his maidservant
14. nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his neighbors

How many do you read? 14 instructions (you can make it 15 since "Keep the Sabbath day holy" is mutually exclusive from "do not work on the Sabbath"

The present catechism follows the division of the Commandments established by Augustine, which has become traditional in the Catholic Church. It is also that of the Lutheran confession. The Greek Fathers worked out a slightly different division, which is found in the Orthodox Churches and Reformed communities

Now, do you understand? Catholics and Lutherans and yes, even most Orthodox Jews keep the same list -- 20:3 and 20:4 are grouped together

The Orthodox use a different formulation and this was copied by the Reformed

Now, FIRST, you've miscalculated -- there are 14-15 commandments

Secondly, the Lutherans keep the same list of commandments as Catholics -- are you saying they distorted it too?

Thirdly, most Orthodox Jews keep the same list of commandments as Catholics do-- are you saying they distorted it too?

Fourthly, the Eastern Orthodox formulation is what some non-catholic groups copied, yet I see some accusing our Orthodox brethern with the same iconoclasmic glee as they accuse us

Finally -- the Catholic Church says you can number the commandments whichever way you want, after all, it's just the way of remembering Exodus 20:2-17 -- 14 commandments...

[Cronos]

Levin, I am surprised to see you say "regardless of what they" Catholics" think of us" -- when normally what we Catholics on FR hear from non-Catholics is reflected in post 53 where one non-catholic says The xx gospel is not good news; it’s a soul damning pack of lies containing just enough truth in it to fool many people.... Your mass is rank blasphemy. Your sacraments don’t save. Your pope is the very embodiment of anti-Christ. -- now does this non-catholic consider us a fellow Christian? No. Most of the condemnation that I see on this board is from the non-c way.

[Cronos]

.45, you are wrong in what your post thinks are Catholic beliefs. We Catholics believe that there is ONE Mediator between God and man -- the God-man Jesus Christ. No saint on heaven or earth is the same special sense of mediator. All saints on heaven and earth are intercessors due to Christ's mediatorship

Those living on earth or living in Christ follow as per 1 Tim 2:1-3 "supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone "

This mediation is through Christ's and is only possible because Jesus IS the Mediator, the Bridge between Man and God

[Cronos]

.45 Long Colt, you are wrong and the Bible and Christ and Christians since Apostolic times disagree with your statement on the sacraments

Paul did preach that baptism is for remission of sins, and here is what Paul said Acts 2:38,

38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 22:16;

16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.

Rom. 6:1–4;

1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

1 Cor 6:11,

11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God

1 Cor 12:13;

13 For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Gal. 3:26–27;

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ

Eph. 5:26;

to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word,

Col. 2:11–12;

11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh[a] was put off when you were circumcised by[b] Christ,
12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Titus 3:5;

5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

One cannot even say this was a symbol -- look at all of the examples above, look at the language, consistently same the same in each, that in baptism we are saved and buried with Christ, washed of our sins by this and born again

Remember, the words of Jesus Christ Himself in Matthew 28:19

19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

[Cronos]

.45 Long Colt, you are wrong and the Bible and Christ and Christians since Apostolic times disagree with your statement on the sacraments

if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The people around Him made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12

5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16).

Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying

John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.

Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.

And, all of this is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)

6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

and also 1 Cor 11:27-29

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

Finally, the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. --> only Calvin/Zwingli turned around what Christ had said

[Cronos]

.45 Long Colt, you are wrong and the Bible and Christ and Christians since Apostolic times disagree with your statement on the sacraments

For the Sacrament of Penance, let me refer to our Protestant brethern, the Lutherans

Note that the sacrament of Holy Penance is also there in Lutheranism, or rather as they call it "Holy Absolution" which is done privately to the pastor and is similar to Catholicism -- the pastor says "In the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

The Pastor is also bound by the seal of Confession.

Orthodox and Oriental Churches have variants on this as well...

From the Lutheran LCMS perspective

It is clear that the Lutheran Fathers had a concept of and a practice of Private Confession and Absolution.

"...in an evangelical way, through instruction and exhortation, and through praising it, (he should) work toward the goal that it (P C&A) be diligently used in addition to general confession and that, where it is possible and advisable, it be finally reintroduced as the exclusive custom and that it be properly preserved where it exists.

And Luther himself said "But whoever has a firm, strong faith in God and is certain that his sins have been forgiven him, he may well omit confession and confess to God alone. But how many are there who have such firm, strong faith and confidence in God? Let everyone look to himself that he does not mislead himself."

"To think that one does not need a Father Confessor is dangerously over estimating one's ability to avoid and contest the accusations and derision of the Devil. Luther claims that the pastor who does not make use of the Absolution ought not to be surprised their preaching and practice does not reflect the precious gift God has given to His Church."

From the Holy Trinity Lutheran Church Missouri Synod

So basic is confession to the Christian life, that the Large Catechism simply says: “When I urge you to go to confession, I am simply urging you to be a Christian.” Christians confess their sins and are forgiven. Unbelievers deny their sins and have no use for forgiveness.

Bonhoeffer calls absolution without personal confession a form of “cheap grace,” a cross-less Christianity. It is the attempt to have repentance without shame, contrition without guilt. It is the equivalent of an out of court settlement - just pay the money admit no wrongdoing. God wants us at the bar of His justice. There is no back room bargaining with the Lord. There is only the Law and the Gospel, our sin and the death of Christ for our sin.

Confession is directed in three ways - to God, to the neighbor, and to the pastor. A Christian always confesses to God, and can always confess to God directly, as we do in the Lord’s Prayer and in our own personal prayers. That is your privilege as a baptized child of God. People sometimes use this privilege as a dodge and an excuse. “I can confess directly to God; therefore, I don’t need to confess before another.” That isn’t humility, but pride. The very words and deeds we are ashamed to admit before a fellow sinner, we were not ashamed to say and do in full view of the Lord of heaven and earth

Though we may confess to God directly, He always deals with us through the external Word, the Word outside of ourselves - through Baptism, through the Lord’s Supper, through the preached Word. The person who boasts confidently, “I can confess my sins to God directly, and therefore don’t need the church,” misses the basic point. It’s not our confession, but God’s forgiveness that matters. And God always deals with us through the incarnation of Jesus, through earthy, creaturely means such as water, bread, wine, words, in this case sound waves that emanate from mouths and go into ear holes.

Christians also confess to their pastor. There are several good reasons for doing this. First, he is ordained to hear confession. That’s what we put him there for. It is one of the tasks laid on a pastor at his ordination. Second, he is equipped by practice and training to help others sharpen and deepen their confession and to square them to the Word of God. Third, he is bound by solemn vow to secrecy, something that a close friends is not. For a pastor to break the seal of confession is grounds for dismissal

Fourth, the pastor is a public, corporate person. He holds an office. The pastor does not speak for himself but for Christ and for the whole church. The pastor is a minister, a servant of the Word, a steward of God’s mysteries revealed in Christ. He is not there as superior, but as servant. He serves not “from above” but “from below.” He is there not to condemn but to forgive. He is under holy orders to forgive. A friend may forgive you simply to keep you as a friend. A family member may forgive you for no other reason than to keep peace in the family. Friends and family we have aplenty. Pastors, we have precious few. A pastor forgives by the divine order of the crucified, risen, and reigning Son of God, “in his stead and by his command.” He represents the person of Jesus, not his own person. Even if the pastor doesn’t like you, or even if you don’t like him, his forgiveness is Christ’s forgiveness, sure and certain, addressed to you. And that’s really all that matters.

so, as you see, this is shared with our Lutheran brethern

[Cronos]

Scripture, and Scripture alone, is my final authority.

So then what is your stand on

1. something as basic as Jesus was always God (Trinitarian position) or that Jesus Christ was man made God (Oneness PENTECOSTAL Protestant position) or the Angel Michael (Seventh Day Adventist Ellen G White teaching) -- all three use scripture alone to justify their points of view and have three diverge in their points of view
2. he REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lutheran, some Anglicans, maybe even Methodists), or is it just a symbol (as your post said)?
3. talking in tongues -- does one HAVE to talk in tongues (Oneness Pentecostal) to display faith or not?
4. and the episcopate (bishops etc.) -- some who have scripture alone have it, some don't
5. Do you read in scripture alone whether Baptism is for infants and sufficient (Presbyterian etc.) or not (Baptists)?
6. God pre-damns people to hell (Calvinism) or not (others)
7. Jesus came only for the salvation of a few (Calvinists) or he was Savior of the world (everyone else)?
8. agree or disagree with soul sleep?
9. worshipping on a Sunday (Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc.) or not (Seventh Day Adventists)
10. agree with the Adventists that one should follow kosher laws or not?
11. and spiritual gifts like prophecy amongst us (Pentecostals) or not (Presbyterians)
12. "slain in the spirit" (Pentecostalism) or not (Presbyterianism, Lutheranism etc)
13. Regeneration comes through Baptism (Lutheranism) or not (Baptists)
14. do you read that grace can be resisted (Pentecostalism, Lutheranism, Methodism) or not (Calvinism)
15. is baptism is three-fold (Mennonites) or not?
16. imputed righteousness (Calvinism) or not (Mennonites)

NOTE: Scriptura is inerrant, but due to varying interpretations, there are the views above. In contrast there is the interpretation that Christ taught to His disciples after His resurrection, handed down through the Apostles to their disciples and their disciples disciples to be in the true way, prawo sławny, the truth as handed down.

Deviation to come up with one's own interpretation leads down the path to Unitarianism. That is why Luther, Zwingli and Calvin met to form their own council to prevent the re-reformers and the re-re-re-reformers as they saw that with the cat out of the bag and the way different men read into scripture, there are errors

That is why Lutheranis, Calvinism, Anglicanism hold to the scriptural interpretation encapsulated in Nicene Creed, knowing that that is a basic fundamental differentiator between those of the faith and those who interpret away to oblivion.

[Cronos]

as described before ad-nauseum, the Pope as a person not ex-cathedra is not infallible, so as a human being he can make errors. However, God's grace through the poewr of the Holy Spirit protects the sub-shepherd of Christ when he defines a doctrine of faith

This is not because, rather it is INSPITE of the person who is the bishop of Rome at that time. Nothing else but the power of the Holy Spirit explains this continuation.

[Cronos]

No one is negating the Word of God. Do read that it points out that using the scripture alone to justify various interpretation is wrong because, being fallible creatures, even if we use the infallible collection of books that is the Bible, we come up with our own interpretations (see above). The only true interpretation is what Christ taught the Apostoles and which was handed down from them.

[Cronos]

I'm not sure why that would be. I would say, "There's biblical authority for paying attention to this."

For other things, I'd say, "There's no biblical authority for paying attention to this."

Well, while by and large that is good and is the basis for verifying any point (i.e. the Holy Scriptures are what we need to use as verifying, inerrant point), it is also open to interpretation about what points are in biblical authority, namely one can say that there is biblical authority to pay attention to, I don't know, talking in tongues, or not. But it can still be subjective. I'll agree that it should be discussed in council, but leaving it up to individuals can lead to a plethora of opinions and divergent ways.

[Cronos]

The verses condemn those who follow the Jewish law over the teachings of Christ. There is no mention of Christ’s teachings handed down through the Apostles that we call Apostolic Tradition.

[Cronos]

The Pope as an individual non-ex-cathedra is fallible. if you, .45, want to argue, understand what you’re arguing about. Papal infallibility has nothing to do with the fallibilty of the person itself holding that office — who is a fallible being. P.i. is specifically that on matters of doctrine, when pronouncing a decision on matters and only when spoken with the authority invested in the chair of Peter, under the grace of God and thanks to the Holy Spirit — only that decision is infallible.

[Cronos]

The verses condemn those who follow the Jewish law over the teachings of Christ. There is no mention of Christ’s teachings handed down through the Apostles that we call Apostolic Tradition.

[Cronos]

Though the question still holds -- "And how do you know what’s authentic Scripture and what isn’t?" on what basis would you say that the Shepherd of Hermes is not to be added in? And also note that Luther called the Epistle of St. James as the epistle of straw

and, also Jewish canon was only closed in AD 70 -- yes, 40 odd years after Christ's death

Marcion ws the first to put together a Biblical canon: This included 10 epistles from St. Paul, as well as a version of the Gospel of Luke, which today is known as the Gospel of Marcion.

Or, Origen of Alexandria whose canon include all of the books in the current Catholic canon except for four books: James, 2nd Peter, and the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John but included the Shepherd of Hermas

And the oriental Churches like the Georgian (remember the earliest Christian state) never accepted the Revelation of John.

so how do you know that the list of inerrant books you have is complete or contains extra books?

[Cronos]

Do you, Uri’el, think that we should follow Jewish traditions on matters such as kosher meat and circumcision?

[Cronos]

“Shekinah” — so do you mean that Jesus was just a resting place for God? Just a vessel?

[Cronos]

bethel: Says the guy who worships a man with a funny hat -- we Christians in the Church worship Jesus Christ and it's called a crown of thorns that Jesus wears,

[Iscool]

Iscool: Is it correct to say you are non-Trinitarian and sola scriptura?

HaHaHa...No it is not correct to say that...

[Iscool]

Christ could not be perfection if He grew in the womb of an imperfect mother.The stain of sin would be attached since life in the womb of imperfection would touch Him

Man's philosophy has no place in understanding the scriptures...