Questions for "Bible Christians" that they can't answer

There are 38 questions + a few bonus questions. I have split them into two separate posts of 20 and 18 + bonus questions. In case you missed it, here is the link to Part 1. Are you ready?

21. Who in the Church had the authority to determine which books belonged in the New Testament canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians? If nobody has this authority, then can I remove or add books to the canon on my own authority?

22. Why do Protestant scholars recognize the early Church councils at Hippo and Carthage as the first instances in which the New Testament canon was officially ratified, but ignore the fact that those same councils ratified the Old Testament canon used by the Catholic Church today but abandoned by Protestants at the Reformation?

23. Why do Protestants follow postapostolic Jewish decisions on the boundaries of the Old Testament canon, rather than the decision of the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

24. How were the bishops at Hippo and Carthage able to determine the correct canon of Scripture, in spite of the fact that they believed all the distinctively Catholic doctrines such as the apostolic succession of bishops, the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, etc?

25. If Christianity is a “book religion,” how did it flourish during the first 1500 years of Church history when the vast majority of people were illiterate?

26. How could the Apostle Thomas establish the church in India that survives to this day (and is now in communion with the Catholic Church) without leaving them with one word of New Testament Scripture?

27. If sola Scriptura is so solid and biblically based, why has there never been a full treatise written in its defense since the phrase was coined in the Reformation?

28. If Jesus intended for Christianity to be exclusively a “religion of the book,” why did He wait 1400 years before showing somebody how to build a printing press?

29. If the early Church believed in sola Scriptura, why do the creeds of the early Church always say “we believe in the Holy Catholic Church,” and not “we believe in Holy Scripture”?

30. If the Bible is as clear as Martin Luther claimed, why was he the first one to interpret it the way he did and why was he frustrated at the end of his life that “there are now as many doctrines as there are heads”?

31. The time interval between the Resurrection and the establishment of the New Testament canon in AD 382 is roughly the same as the interval between the arrival of the Mayflower in America and the present day. Therefore, since the early Christians had no defined New Testament for almost four hundred years, how did they practice sola Scriptura?

32. If the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth, why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?

33. Jesus said that the unity of Christians would be objective evidence to the world that He had been sent by God (John 17:20-23). How can the world see an invisible "unity" that exists only in the hearts of believers?

34. If the unity of Christians was meant to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God, what does the ever-increasing fragmentation of Protestantism say to the world?

35. Hebrews 13:17 says, "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you." What is the expiration date of this verse? When did it become okay not only to disobey the Church's leaders, but to rebel against them and set up rival churches?

36. The Koran explicitly claims divine inspiration, but the New Testament books do not. How do you know that the New Testament books are nevertheless inspired, but the Koran is not?

37. How does a Protestant know for sure what God thinks about moral issues such as abortion, masturbation, contraceptives, eugenics, euthanasia, etc.?

38. What is one to believe when one Protestant says infants should be baptized (e.g., Luther and Calvin) and another says it is wrong and unbiblical (e.g., Baptists and Evangelicals)?

A Few Bonus Questions

. . . tell us how we know that the revelation of Jesus Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle?

. . . inform us of the names of the authors of the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John?

. . . .tell us Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man from the moment of conception (e.g. how do we know His Divinity wasn't infused later in His life?) and/or tells us Jesus Christ is One Person with two complete natures, human and Divine and not some other combination of the two natures (i.e., one or both being less than complete)?

. . . that the church should, or someday would be divided into competing and disagreeing denominations?

. . . that Protestants can have an invisible unity when Jesus expected a visible unity to be seen by the world (see John 17)?

. . . tell us Jesus Christ is of the same substance of Divinity as God the Father?

Would you please post the Book, Chapter and verse where Jesus said that? Never mind. It wasn’t Jesus who said that while He was on earth and it wasn’t the RCC concept of a “church” that Paul was talking about.

Have you ever said that Catholics are ignorant of Scripture? Sorry, but I have to ask.

All you have to do is a simple word search on Biblegateway. The verse is Matthew 18:17.

The RCC has taught a total lie as to what the “church” is. The word used in the Greek text of the New Testament is “assembly”. Not once is the RCC concept of a “church” ever mentioned. There were local assemblies of believers. That was the assembly that was to control itself and decide who they would allow to participate. That lie by the RCC has caused Catholics to misunderstand much of scripture which makes the rest of you questions and comments moot.

Your view cannot be logically reconciled with the passage.

"If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." --Jesus

The following conclusions follow with logical necessity from Jesus' statement.

Since Jesus could have said, "tell it to Me," His Church must have had equal teaching authority to Himself.

Secondly, His Church must have been visible. An invisible church cannot settle disputes.

Moreover, the teachings of His Church must have been unified, since no dispute could be settled by one local community church while contradicting another. Christ's command would have been nonsensical and void, which is an impossibility.

This is the same Church that "the gates of hell" would not prevail against, so it must persist to this day.

Only the Orthodox and Catholic Churches can trace their origin to the Apostles.

>> "If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church;<<

See what I mean about the RCC corrupting the meaning of the words used in scripture. The Greek word used there translates to “assembly”. As in local assembly. Those believers who the offender normally gathered with. It was they who would decide to disassociate with that individual.

>> Secondly, His Church must have been visible. An invisible church cannot settle disputes.<<

Of course they were visible. When believers assemble together they are visible. Duh!

>> Moreover, the teachings of His Church must have been unified, since no dispute could be settled by one local community church while contradicting another.<<

Those believers who rely on Christ alone for their salvation are indeed unified by faith. A local dispute amongst members can indeed be dealt with by local assemblies.

>> This is the same Church that "the gates of hell" would not prevail against, so it must persist to this day.<<

Those who are “in Christ” are indeed secure in that the gates of hell will not prevail against them and rest assured there are people to this day who rely on Christ alone for their salvation.

>> Only the Orthodox and Catholic Churches can trace their origin to the Apostles.<<

Only those who have fallen for the deceptions of the RCC believe that. The “Catholic Churches” don’t even teach the same as the apostles and they have perverted what the word "assembly" meant.

So just what are those traditions that Paul handed down to the churches to which he wrote?

Be patient. I will provide examples below.

How do you know what they are, that they are his, and that they have been handed down faithfully?

Jude 1:3
Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

"The faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" is preserved and made known to us by Christ's Church, "the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15)."

["If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." (Mat. 18:17)]

An explicit explanation of the relationship between the Church and the Deposit of Faith entrusted to it is provided by the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

Tradition and Living Magisterium
Closer study of the living magisterium will enable us to better understand the splendid organism created by God and gradually developed that it might preserve, transmit, and bring within the reach of all revealed truth, ever the same, but adapted to every variety of time, circumstances, and environment. Properly speaking, this magisterium is a teaching authority; it not only presents the truth, but it has the right to impose it, since its power is the very power given by God to Christ and by Christ to His Church. This authority is called the teaching Church...
To this identity of revealed truth corresponds the identity of faith. What the first Christians believed we still believe; what we believe today they believed more or less explicitly, in a more or less conscious way. Since the deposit of Revelation has remained the same, the same also, in substance, has remained the taking possession of the deposit by the living faith. Each of the faithful has not at all times nor has he always explicit consciousness of all that he believes, but his implicit belief always contains what he one day makes explicit in the profession of faith. Certain truths, which may be called fundamental, have always been explicitly professed in the Church either by word or action; others which may be called secondary may have long remained implicit, enveloped, as regards their precise detail, in a more general truth where faith did not discern them at the first glance. In the first case at a given time uncertainties may have existed, controversies have arisen, heresies cropped up. But the mind of the Church, the Catholic sense, has not hesitated as to what was essential, there has never been in the Christian world that darkening of the truth with which heretics have reproached it; these might have seen and they who had eyes to see did see. On these points disputes have never arisen among the faithful; there have sometimes been very sharp disputes, but they had to do with misunderstandings or bore only on details of expression.

So the "deposit of faith" included clear teachings as well as implicit beliefs that were later made explicit and formally defined by the Church. (Yet some implicit beliefs likely remain to be made explicit and formally defined.)

Some examples of Sacred Tradition that I can think of are:

-The canon of Scripture
-The Trinity
-Forms of baptism
-Infant baptism
-The necessity of Baptism
-The Sacrament of Confession
-The Sacrament of the Eucharist, although it's found explicitly in Scripture
-The Sacrament of Confirmation
-The Sacrament of the Annointing of the Sick
-The Sacrament of Marriage/no Divorce
-The Sacrament of Holy Orders
-The outlawing of polygamy ("I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture" --Luther).
-The Assumption of Mary
-The Immaculate Conception
-Sunday as The Lord's Day
-The Mass
-Holy Days of Obligation
-The Saints
-Ancient prayers
-The university
-The hospital
-The Works of Mercy
-The Seven Deadly Sins
-The Seven Christian Virtues.
-The Hail Mary
-Purgatory (although explicitly referred to in 2 Macabbees)
-Praying to the Saints
-Religious Sisters/Brothers
-The Priesthood
-Praying for the dead

The list goes on forever.

I found this definition of Sacred Tradition to be helpful, too:

Strictly speaking, the Tradition is Jesus. It is he who is being handed down by the Church in her life, worship, and teaching. The Church hands him down in the sacraments, for instance. She hands him down in her doctrines, which teach us to think with the mind of Christ. She hands him down in her moral and devotional life, wherein we learn to worship the Father as he does. She hands him down in her people, both lay and ordained as they gather to worship and express him through our various gifts and offices. She hands him down in Scripture, which is his living word in writing. She hands him down in the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. She hands him down in the ordained office. In all this, the Tradition is much more like a living organism than a mathematically precise body of doctrines...
No. The tradition is by no means all written down and indeed some of it cannot be written since it consists, not so much of words, as of a particular way of seeing the world: what has been called the sacramental/liturgical way. This way of seeing is not so much learned as caught. It is not a matter of secret knowledge (the Church, in fact, despises the notion that the Gospel is some Gnostic secret knowable only to the initiate and insists that the Gospel is, in fact, completely public information). But it is a way of seeing the world that is not communicated simply via the written word. It is also communicated via gesture (especially the gestures of the liturgy) and via the assumption that the world is a giant sacramental by which God communicates his grace not merely through word, but through creation and especially those creations we call “sacraments.”
--What is Sacred Tradition

It is the assembly that occupies the synagogue. Deception never works! Twisting the truth (like a wick) is the source of the word wicked.

If the "synagogues" were the same thing as the meeting places of Christians, then explain why Jesus warned His disciples that they would face persecution and expulsion from the synagogues? Here are a few:

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. (Matthew 10:16-18)

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. (Matthew 23:33-35)

For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows. But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them. And the gospel must first be published among all nations. (Mark 13:8-10)

And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say. (Luke 12:10-12)

And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven. But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake. And it shall turn to you for a testimony. (Luke 21:11-13)

I don't know about y'all, but it sure doesn't sound like synagogues were the place Christians should be setting up shop.

You keep posting the ONE verse. Here is the context of the passage again: Matthew 18:

That's the passage.

Does this contradict any of the logical conclusions that follow from Christ's command?

In fact, the context reinforces the church's teaching authority:

"Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

This echoes Matthew 16:19

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

And also Isaiah 22:22

And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

And also Rev. 3:7

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.