Me thinks thou protest too much. How many of these do we need to post a week? The Bible itself supports Sola Scriptura despite the desperate pleas from Catholics otherwise. The same old arguments relived over and over like some Groundhog Day movie.
How do you know?
How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?
How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?
What is your source for verifying all of the above?
Please provide the sources for verification purposes.
The problem Christianity has with catholicism is that once the Bible was established, Catholicism started reading into the Bible things that weren't there. The papacy for instance is one.
There is no uniform agreement amongst the ECFs on the papacy.
There is nothing in the NT that says Peter, Paul and the guys would pass their "authority" down to the next guy. Would there be successors? Sure. No one denies that. You have to have a continuation of leadership. But no where in the NT does it say that only Peter and Paul and James, etc can teach/preach. There were a host of believers that were scattered about when Paul was persecuting the church and somehow they managed to spread the Word.
The other problem with catholic tradition is that it has taken great liberties with the Word. Instead of using context as the key for interpretation, analogy is used. This opens the door for false doctrine as we see in the catholic treatment of Mary labeling her as the new Eve. It also gives rise to the false teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin as the Bible notes Jesus did have brothers and sisters as evident from the context of the text.
There is also an apparent steadfast refusal by most catholics to use the original languages from my observations on this board. The original languages of Hebrew and Greek clear up a lot of the false teachings of any denomination. I know you and I have personally had discussions on the Greek used in Luke noting that Jesus was the first born of Mary. The greek word used by Luke indicates first born...not only born. The greek words used in John 3:16 and other verses cleary describe Jesus as the only Son of God...no other Son. Yet, catholics continue on in their "tradition".
Then we have the pope saying this today regarding Mary:
. Mary is thus the icon of the Church who, eagerly awaiting her Lord, progresses day after day in her understanding of the faith, thanks also to the patient work of men and women theologians. May Our Lady, the teacher of true theology, obtain for us, by her maternal prayer, that our charity “may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment”
Yet this stands in contradiction to the Word regarding the role of the Holy Spirit.
John 16:13
13“But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14“He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you."
We also have the declaration from catholicism that Mary was born sinless and remained sinless in direct contradiction of Romans 3:23. Paul did not note Mary being the exception. He does note that Jesus was sinless though.
And yet, when this is pointed out to catholics, all they can do is scream, "its your own interpretation." No it's not. It's the Word. It's clear.
Those are some of the problems Christianity has with catholicism.
Good read, however, I think I will stick with Scripture. Works for me.
“Ironically Protestants, who normally scoff at tradition in favor of the Bible, themselves are using a Bible based on tradition”
The only canon that is authoritative is Scripture. That canon has been examined by scholars numerous times and earlier errors corrected.
Ya right.....
Forbid not to eat meat...Call no man father...A bishop must have a wife and kids...
Your religion flunked before it even got started...
The blind leading the blind...
Lot’s of circular reasoning in that article. None that stand up to scripture. Catholics can not prove that what the Catholic Church today considers tradition is what the apostles taught as tradition. And Catholics will never get by the admonition of Paul about “any other gospel”. The Catholic Church today teaches many things the apostles didn’t teach and are thus to be considered accursed.
” But if Church councils are capable of arriving at infallible decisions three hundred years after the death of the last apostle, the Protestant apologist has no reason to claim they are incapable of this later on in Church history.”
Logically, this statement is simply incorrect, and it is an example of something that Catholic Church supporters often do, which is to claim that because something is possible, it has to be so. An infallible decision on what to include in the Bible does not, logically, guarantee infallible decisions hundreds of years after that. It is a possibility which is something in the Catholic Church’s favor, worthy of consideration, but logically speaking, it does not prove future decisions are also infallible. What also has to considered then, is other evidence, and it’s in that evidence that evangelicals see reason to conclude that the Catholic Church’s decisions in later times shouldn’t be taken as infallible.
There’s no need here to talk about all the evidence that’s considered, but one thing that should be looked at is the question of whether or not it’s the same church. For one, it’s not made up of the same people, and not at the same place in Christianity’s development. And for another thing, the true Church is made up of all those who are truly the Lord’s. The Bible says He knows those who are is. The true Church is eternal, and even if you refer to it as universal, or “catholic,” that’s still not necessarily the same Church as the earthly Roman Catholic Church. Having a name , like “Christian” or “catholic,” might or might not be the truth. Jesus in Revelation said to a church that it had a name that said it was alive, but it was actually dead.
And the Catholic Church of later centuries is different from the Church that canonized the Bible in other ways, too. The fourth-century church was that much closer to Jesus’ Incarnation and the witness and discipleship of His apostles. The Lord in His infinite wisdom gave those earliest followers such convincing experiences that they suffered death rather than deny who Jesus is. The church was built on that foundation, using persecution and martyrdom, but with the Roman Empire’s acceptance of Christianity, that condition changed. However, the Bible was canonized only decades after Christianity’s acceptance, essentially by the foundational era of the Church. What concerns evangelicals, though, is that as the centuries went on, what developed into the Roman Catholic Church became more like an earthly kingdom and a corporation, with positions in the clergy offering power, security and a comfortable living, and especially to those in the higher ranks.
And too, the Church leadership changed radically when celibacy became required. It’s not the only radical change, as over time it seems that the relationship between official Church leaders and laymen became more formal and distant, but it’s particularly notable. From what I’ve learned, as Christianity took on authority in government, it began to take greater steps to stamp out homosexual acts through criminalizing it. And given just what’s come out about the Catholic Church, present and past, you have see signs of a homosexual underground existing throughout the clergy, including at the highest levels.
Evangelicals, then, see that there is doctrine in the Catholic Church that has come into being over the centuries which conflicts with God’s Word and character as already revealed. And while Catholics will often say none of Catholic doctrine does, the priesthood is more cagey on that point. When Pope Francis recently said that room had to be allowed for God to do “something new,” he was really only expressing a perspective that the priesthood has accepted for a long time. The priesthood essentially sees itself as God’s Word living on earth, and the Bible as inspired and essentially true, but at a point where Christianity was “less developed” and the Church is above it because it has more of the “Christlike spirit” - in, for example, rejecting slavery - than the Bible has. I’ll stop here on this, but there is plenty more evidence that shows the Catholic Church considers the Bible to be more of a guide than God’s inspired, infallible Word for Christians to conform to.
Then, on another claim this author makes, on the question of whether or not God’s Word is “obvious” and “self-authenticating,” he’s inaccurate on what the evangelical view is.
To begin with, the two examples from Scripture that he points to - the child Samuel not recognizing God’s voice, and a man of God being misled - don’t support his argument. First, Samuel was only a child, in the process of being taught, and second, we can believe that God had control of the situation, and had reasons that had to do with Eli as well for why He had Samuel go to him. You get the sense from this episode that through it the Lord was showing Eli how far he was in his heart from truly being the priest he should have been, since little Samuel was hearing the Lord’s voice, but he wasn’t.
Then in regard to the author’s second example, he fails to mention what happened next. The man of God was told this:
” 21 And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the Lord, and hast not kept the commandment which the Lord thy God commanded thee,
22 But camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the Lord did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcase shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers.” 1 Kings 13
The point is that the man heard God’s Word, but disobeyed it, and was punished by God for that reason. The problem was with the man, which God exposed, not with God’s Word not being clear.
And as we look at the Old Testament, we should not forget all the examples of people hearing God’s Word and following it. God made clear there, too, that the problem with those who didn’t wasn’t with them not hearing it, but with them not be willing to obey it. And the point of the New Covenant God made with man, through His Son, is that God Himself would put His Spirit in man, giving him the mind of Christ, through the Holy Spirit, as well as a new heart that loved the Lord and His ways. This would make the spiritually dead come alive.
In the New Covenant, then, we can know we’re following God and His Word. The point of both Covenants is that we come to recognize and accept that we are to depend on the Lord as our highest and, ultimately, only true authority. We’re to put aside all of the other “gods,” including ourselves and other people, that we turn to, and come to Him humbly, asking Him to direct us. Evangelicals believe that those who had charge of the early Church did that, but see evidence that as the centuries went on, the official Church leadership drifted away from that, and became worldly. But again, the true Church isn’t of this world, but is spiritual and eternal, and its authority can only come from the Holy Spirit, which guides us to go to God and ask Him about anything and everything, as we go about our daily lives. That is God’s ultimate purpose for us, so that we’re restored to fellowship with Him, and unlike Adam and Eve, will forever depend on Him alone.
I wasn’t able to join this discussion sooner, but have read the more recent comments and hope to have time to reply to at least some here. But I did post at 123 and want to make sure some concerns I have about the Catholic beliefs stated here in this article are considered, so I’m pinging some of the recent contributors to the discussion.
Briefly, in that post I addressed just a few things. One was that Catholic Church defenders often argue that if their church holds some position and it is in some way possible, then it must be so, which is not logical. And along with that, I brought up the question of whether or not the Church of the Fourth Century which compiled the Bible is the same of later centuries, since this article’s author claims that the Catholic Church made an infallible decision then, so it’s only logical, according to him, that it must have been the same church and continued to make infallible decisions, up to the present day. But the Catholic Church in later centuries is not the same people, at the same point in Christianity’s development, and was much further removed from Jesus and the witness He left with His disciples, while the Church which compiled the Bible was essentially still the foundational Church, built on the Apostles’ witness as well as centuries of persecution and martyrdom.
And the author’s two examples from Scripture about the ability to hear God’s Word also didn’t truly support his argument, since Samuel was only a child, and the man of God was told he would be punished for disobeying God’s Word (and he was), so we know God’s Word was clear, but he wasn’t faithful to it - and that is essentially the whole issue. God speaks clearly, but man disobeys. Through Jesus, though, the Lord gives us a heart and mind that recognizes our total dependence on Him alone, and desires to serve Him obediently and faithfully, and this is the Spirit of the true Church.
I’ll also add to what I already wrote is that one other example of the Catholic Church leadership using the Bible only as a general guide which it also sees as something somewhat “outdated” and so open to modification is that it has allowed the idea that Mary is “co-redemptrix” to creep in. In no way does Scripture support anything but the utter rejection of that idea, yet it has some de facto acceptance among Catholic leaders, and Benedict said there was no reason to make it official, since the thought is already included in other titles for Mary, it departs **too far*** from Scripture (meaning departing from Scripture is acceptable to a degree) and it would “complicate” evangelical efforts. But again, God’s Word makes clear that there is Creator, and creature, and He will not share His glory. ALL goodness comes from Him and Him only, and when He bestows some on creatures, it is both gifted to them, and required that they not take any credit for it themselves (”I earned or deserve what good God has given me,” as if He could owe us anything), but give all credit to the Lord. The very reason that Satan and the angels were cast out of Heaven was their rejection of their proper place, and as creatures God’s good will for us, so that we can know the way of true love, joy and peace forever, is that we take and keep to our proper places before Him.
>> “Neither did the Holy Spirit promise a revelation to each individual Christian of what books belonged in the Bible.” <<
.
Since no apostle had anything to do with selecting a canon, there can be no logical argument for accepting this obvious falsehood.
.
If you are going to post these prolix papal polemics, then you must face their refutation
.Some anti-Catholics, such as James White, are fond of claiming that the writer of Psalm 119 knew what God’s word was even though the Catholic Church wasn’t around to tell him what it was. But unless he was a prophet or had access to a prophet, the Psalmist did not have an infallibly known canon in his day. The canon was not yet finished, much less settled.
An invalid argument, for the fact that both writings and men of God were discerned and established as being so without a perpetual, assuredly infallible (if conditional) magisterium (PAIM) means that a canon of such established writings could be progressively established, as it was, like as the limited OT canon first was.
The Lord referenced the Law, and the prophets and the writings in showing the Scriptural basis for His messiahship, mission and message, which is understood as being the tripartite canon held by those who sat in the seat of Moses. </p>
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, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:44-47)
Secondly, the idea of "an infallibly known canon" presumes one cannot have correct assurance of Truth without an PAIM, and that such was promised and existed, which is is not and cannot be proved.
Souls did rightly have assurance of Truth, of God and what was of God, without a PAIM, which was never essential for supplying, discerning, dispensing and preserving Truth. Thus the NT had a verifiable foundation in the Scriptures. And in fact, while the magisterial office is valid, needed, and authoritative, with disobedience even being a capital offense God in some cases in the OT, (Dt. 17:8-13) yet such never possessed the charism of assured infallibility which Rome presumes, so that whenever it would universally speak on faith and morals then it was infallible.
And instead God sometimes raised up prophets, wise men and scribes (cf. Mt. 23:34) which discerned, provided and preserved what was of God, and reproved the magisterium. Thus the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; (Ephesians 2:20) — not the historical magisterium, to whom all of aforementionedmen which were in dissent from, who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34) </p><p>
And instead of following the Roman model, in which the office of historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, etc. are to be followed, the church began with common people rightly discerning what was of God and thus followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved from 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. (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.)
And that the word of God/the Lord usually was written and became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing Truth claims is abundantly evidenced,
Anti-Catholics such as White claim that God’s word is self-authenticating, that it needs no witness. This claim is simply unbiblical. In scripture people regularly had to test revelation to see if it conveyed the word of God. This was not always obvious, even to the people to whom the revelation was given.
Note the identification Akin gives to White, which thus makes Akin anti-Protestant, as as well are seeing, anti-Christian. What White is that God authenticates Himself, that it, it is what it is regardless of what man thinks, so that it is not man or the church which authenticates the Word of God. (http://vintage.aomin.org/2White07.html)
Yet while both men and words of God are so regardless, in establishing them as being so for man then it does not mean that people did not need to regularly test revelation to see if it conveyed the word of God — which an admission is contrary to the RC argument that the infallible magisterium is essential for this — but means that God provided means by which His word was authenticated as being of God, due to its unique heavenly qualities. Thus people discerned what was of God without an infallible magisterium. “for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.” (Mark 11:32) “And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes.” (2 Chronicles 34:19)
And thus like additional writings added to the then-established canon in the light of of their complimentary and conflative nature.
Greg Bahnsen writes that “Moreover, their messages were of necessity coherent with each other. A genuine claim to inspiration by a literary work minimally entailed consistency with any other book revealed by God.....A genuine word from God could always be counted upon, then, to agree with previously given revelation -- as required in Deut. 13:1-5...” (http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt093.htm) Thus the frequent references to the OT in the NT.
For example, in 1 Samuel 3, when God first spoke to Samuel, the boy prophet did not recognize the word of God. He thought it was the old priest Eli calling him, so he got up, went to where Eli was resting, and said, “Here I am, for you called me!”
Indeed. He did not need an infallible magisterium to know for sure this was of God, anymore than one needs that to know for sure Scripture is of God, contrary Akin's own premise. And the coclusion this was the God of Abraham was subject to testing by the established transcendent standard for Truth, which was the written word.
How do we know which books belong in the Bible? The early Church’s answer was: Those books which are apostolic belong in the canon of scripture. If a book had been handed down by the apostles as scripture (like the books of the Old Testament)
That is a superficial basis. OT writings were established as being of God before the apostles, and thus they invoked them, and while their affirmation was part of the attestation to writings being of God, yet the reason that apostolic testimony carries weight is due to them being established as being men of God upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
“[The early Fathers] had recourse to the criterion of orthodoxy…. This appeal to the testimony of the churches of apostolic foundation was developed especially by Irenaeus
Yet upon what basis were the churches of apostolic foundation established as being from God? Upon the premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility of office, or Scriptural substantiation, under the premise of Scripture being the established transcendent standard for Truth? It was manifestly the latter. Thus while Akin imagines he is supporting the alternative to SS, that of the supremacy of the PAIM of Rome, he is not.
Second, those books were regarded as apostolic which were preached in the various churches as being from the pen of an apostle or the associate of an apostle — not just its doctrines, but the book itself. If a given work was not regarded as apostolic and was not preached as such in the churches, then it was rejected.
That was also problematic, as when faced with books for whom not author was certain, such as Hebrews — which i see as one of the most manifestly inspired books of Scripture (but i am certain it is not by Paul, maybe Apollos or Peter) — and faced with books that were used by many churches by not all, then doubt and disagreement went on for centuries, and right into Trent.
In fact, despite the emphasis Roman Catholic apologists (RCAs) place upon the certainty of the canon, the fact is that Rome had no infallible, indisputable canon for over 1400 years after the last book was written, and until after the death of Luther in 1546!
Eventually, the New Testament canon was settled at the Council of Rome in the year 382 under Pope Damasus I. Up to this point, its specific books were not firmly settled.
A typical stretch, as it manifestly was not settled, while the Council of Rome affirmation is said to depend upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent.
Now a Protestant apologist will either have to agree that the men at the Council of Rome included all of the right books and only the right books in the canon or he has to disagree....But if he agrees that the Council of Rome included all the right books and only the right books in the New Testament canon then he is going to have to say that the early Church made an infallible decision (infallible because they included all the right and only the right books, thus making an inerrant decision under God’s providential guidance — which is infallible guidance). They made this infallible decision three hundred years after the death of the last apostle. But if Church councils are capable of arriving at infallible decisions three hundred years after the death of the last apostle, the Protestant apologist has no reason to claim they are incapable of this later on in Church history.
A specious conclusion of Roman reasoning from error to error, as it first presumes that making a correct judgment in one thing means the entity is infallible, which logic means everyone who does so is infallible, including the Scribes and Pharisees who were right in most of what they held.
Secondly. Akin argues that if one makes a correct=infallible judgment then that means they can be infallible in the future. But besides making a correct judgment to mean one is infallible, the fact that one has made and can make a correct judgment simply does not translate in assurance that one will be, especially as per Rome's premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office!
Thus Akin has struck out in every one of his arguments.
the Church can not only make rulings of what is apostolic and what is not hundred of years after the death of the last apostle, it can also rule on which traditions are apostolic and which are not — and do so centuries into the Church age...The Church is the living Bride of Christ, and she recognizes the voice of her husband. She is able to point at proposed scriptures and say,
This what Akin has been trying to establish warrant for, but which is not simply that they church can make such rulings, but that they will be infallible, based upon her false, unScriptural premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility of office. For the alternative to Scripture being the supreme standard is that of the PAIM of Rome being supreme, and thus she can infallibly declare what is Truth, and what if of God or not. And whereby 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.
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. She can thus “remember” (as Ratzinger argued) something not recorded in Scripture, and even is lacking in evidence from early centuries, and require it to be believed under penalty of anathema if not, as was the case for the presumptuous Assumption of Mary.
Of course the Church has tests she uses to figure out what traditions are apostolic, just as she had tests to establish what scriptures were apostolic. One test is whether a given tradition contradicts what has previously been revealed...The Church is thus more than happy to test proposed traditions against scripture.
That is a valid test if the basis for veracity is the weight and quality of the evidence, however this is not the case with RC teaching, as instead it is the premise of the assured infallibility of Rome, and in the exercise of which even the arguments and reasons behind an infallible teaching are not covered by the imagined charism of magisterial infallibility. Thus as Akin's fellow RCA asserts, “the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
It thus follows that Scripture only assuredly consists of and means what Rome autocratically officially says it does, and thus while going through the motions of showing conflation or lack of contradiction with Scripture, it is not allowed that it could contradict her.
Thus when, in the second and third centuries, the writings of the Gnostics taught that Jesus was not God or that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of Jesus Christ, these books were summarily rejected on the basis of not matching up to the apostolic tradition.
Which seems to have increasingly become the recourse due to the problems of defeating enemies by Scriptural substantiation under which itinerant preachers defeated those who sat in the seat of Moses but which in pride and hardness of heart rejected God manifest in the flesh. Instead, Rome became as the Scribes and Pharisees, resting upon historical descent for credibility and perpetual authenticity, and making the “tradition of the elders” sacrosanct, teaching doctrines out of traditions of men which developed through the years.
The problems with this appeal is that not only does historical descent not provide assured credibility and perpetual authenticity, as those in Moses's seat example (though the Israel of God continues), but that while the “tradition of the elders” may be correct, unlike wholly inspired Scripture it can be unwarranted as doctrine, or even erroneous. And by making tradition sacrosanct and the basis for warrant then it can also perpetuate and introduce errors, as Rome examples.
Once a tradition has been shown to belong to the canon of tradition, it is no longer up subject to testing.
Meaning not as men and writing of God were established as being so in Bible times, without an assuredly infallible magisterium, but as Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible, thus once she declares something is an infallible teaching then it is not to be questioned, nor basically is any “official” teaching, though in reality what is official teaching and or its meaning is often subject to interpretation.
Thus as in cults, a faithful RC is not to examine the evidence to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, but “All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” “Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means."
A Protestant apologist would not question whether a given book of the New Testament belongs in the canon based on whether it makes a statement that is difficult to reconcile with something said in another book. Once it has been found to be canonical, we can have confidence that it is God’s infallible word and any apparent difficulties arising between it any what God has said elsewhere can be solved.
Wrong, as while the canon has been established, it is not because an assuredly infallible magisterium has done so, but due to its enduring heavenly qualities and attestation which continually validates itself. Thus as with a claim to be a man of God, while a Protestant may question whether a book or parts thereof (as some RC scholars do) really belongs in the canon due to its lack of conflation.But the fact that the 66 book canon has had such constancy and supremacy is a testimony to its warrant, and not the decree of a presumed infallible magisterium.
In the same way, once a tradition has been tested and found canonical, we can have confidence that it is God’s inerrant word and that any apparent difficulty arising between it and anything God has said elsewhere has a solution.
Wrong, as the basis for the validity of said tradition does not rest upon that by which men and writings of God we established as being so long before a Romanized church imagined it was essential for this. Instead the validity of said tradition rests upon the presumed assured veracity of Rome. Both of which must be tested by Scripture, but RCs reject the evidence against them based upon the premise that Rome cannot be wrong (“the church gave you the Bible: it knows better than you!”)
Liberals use these to attack the inerrancy of scripture,
He should know. For decades his brethren have done so right in an official Bible of Rome.
But the Protestant apologist has an even more fundamental problem because in order to justify his principle of sola scriptura or the “Bible only theory,” he would have to claim that we know what books belong in the Bible without acknowledging the authoritative role of apostolic tradition and the Church in finding this out. If, as on the Protestant theory, we must prove everything from scripture alone then we must be able to show what belongs in the canon of scripture from scripture alone.
False, and another typical parroted polemic. For as RCs themselves allow, explicit support is not necessary for judgment, and thus such a thing as consensual cannibalism (we eat whoever dies first) can be conditionally condemned under the principal that only animal and plant life are manifestly provided as being man's food, (Gn. 9:3) yet as the puprose of the law is to save life, thus in dire circumstances it might be allowable.
And since the written word of God, as written, became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, even which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus in principal they materially provide for a canon of Scripture — without an infallible magisterium, thus Scripture.
And in principle, we see SS being established, with limited formal sufficiency but with its materially sufficiency providing for its future overall sufficiency. Yet which includes the church, the magisterium, reason, natural revelation, etc.
In fact, we cannot even begin to use sola scriptura before we have identified what the scriptures are.
Yet SS in its fulness is not claimed by its main advocates of note as being operative before a complete canon, any more than RCs can argue that the infallible church was the supreme authority throughout time. Before Moses, express Divine revelation was very limited only to a few persons. God the supernaturally established Moses as His spokesman, and through whom the Law came, which became the supreme standard. Other supplementary complementary writings became part of that standard in conflation with it.
With the apparent completion of Scripture, To whom much is given, much is required.
If one claims to know what the scriptures are then one is making a claim of propositional knowledge, and which could only be revealed by God since we are talking about a supernatural subject, meaning he is making a claim to propositional revelation. But if all propositional revelation must be found in the Bible, then the list of the canon must itself be contained in the scriptures. The Protestant apologist must therefore show, from scripture alone, what books belong in the Bible
Rather, holding Scripture supreme and sufficient in formal and materials aspects combined does not require all propositional (knowledge of facts, knowledge that such and such is the case) revelation to be formally revealed in Scripture, but it provides for souls obtaining propositional revelation that Scripture is the word of God, and that Jesus is Lord, which no man can say but by the Holy Spirit. (1Cor. 12:3) And if even one book of Scripture shows that souls can discern writings that are of God, then it provides for recognition of 66 books.
Westminster also states,
“all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all, what is necessary is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, and Scripture is such that “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”
“Cp. VI: Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature , and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. hat “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
The Protestant apologist is in a fix. In order to use sola scriptura he is going to have to identify what the scriptures are, and since he is unable to do this from scripture alone, he is going to have to appeal to things outside of scripture to make his case, meaning that in the very act of doing this he undermines this case. There is no way for him to escape the canon of tradition.
The only one in a fix is the one who is deceived by the idea that SS means only Scripture can be used, or that it formally provides all that is needed, and thus must find a complete canon of Scripture within it, versus the writings being established as being of God, and the supreme standard for Truth.
I contrast, Roman reasoning holds that one cannot be sure about what is of God apart from the infallible magisterium of Rome. RCs thus appeal to Scripture as merely as a “historically accurate document” in seeking to persuade souls to submit to her as assured infallible, and cease seeking to ascertain the veracity of her truth claims by examining the evidence for them. Which is not Scripture but cultic.
Apostolic Tradition was the key to the canon in two ways — by telling us what doctrines apostolic books must teach (or not teach) and by telling us which books themselves were written by the apostles and their associates.
By Apostolic Tradition is meant oral teaching, which Rome imagines includes such things as praying to departed saints in Heaven, and her perpetually infallibly Petrine papacy, among others that are absent from Scripture and contrary to it. But RCs cannot provides any proof that the apostles oral teaching cited in Scripture contained such, yet they are to be believed under the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
And again, the apostles themselves wee dependent upon Scripture being the supreme standard for their claims to authority and the gospel, and that of the oral preaching of the NT, which was not that of Apostolic Tradition is not that of some things she forgot but later “remembered” almost 2k years later which are not recorded in Scripture, and are even lacking evidence from early centuries, yet which she required to be believed under penalty of anathema if not, as was the case for the presumptuous Assumption of Mary.
While RCAs falsely argue SS is not supported in Scripture, though it is in principle, they cannot established the PAIM of Rome and her channeling of doctrines out of her amorphous tradition. Concerning which issue Akin's nemesis James White states, “you have to demonstrate that an oral tradition that contains information other than that found in the New Testament is what is being spoken of when the New Testament speaks of tradition.
And I have already shown you from a number of passages in Thessalonians and in Timothy that the deposit, the faith, that which was entrusted to Timothy, which he is to pass on--which, as you know, is a classical text used in Roman Catholicism to defend the concept of the passing on of oral tradition--the Scriptures themselves demonstrate that that is simply the Gospel. It is the standard of sound doctrine. It is not something, as Tertullian said, that can be used to substantiate doctrines that had never even entered into the minds of the Apostles and prophets. Such concepts as Immaculate Conception or Bodily Assumption or Papal Infallibility, these aspects were not a part of the New Testament belief.http://vintage.aomin.org/1Mata01.html
Ironically Protestants, who normally scoff at tradition in favor of the Bible, themselves are using a Bible based on tradition. In fact, most honest Protestants would admit that they hold to the books they do because when they first became Christians someone handed them (“traditioned” or “handed on”) copies of the Bible that contained those books!
Actually, the issue is that of making the instrument of transmission equal to the written word, but we are not to base our acceptance of the Bible due to its means of transmission, which does not make it equal to Scripture, nor make all that is likewise transmitted equal to it. Rather, God supernaturally established men of God as being of Him, but as the word of God was written, as it usually ultimately was, then it became the supreme standard. To which more complementary conflative writing were added. Thus Truth, of what and who was of God, depended upon supernatural heavenly qualities and attestation by which souls discerned them, with Scripture becoming the established assured word of God by which truth claims were established, not under the premise of an assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome doing so.
And I hold to the books I do because while someone essentially handed me (“traditioned” or “handed on”) copies of the Bible, yet i hold them because i discerned what was of God by His grace, by which means souls came to Christ upon the basis of warrant, and so they remain, versus a church making various things equal with Scripture under the premise that a common means of transmission warrants that, under the fallacious premise of her assured infallibility.