No, that is simply not true, since besides plainly commanding John to "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter," (Revelation 1:19) then by commanding obedience to Himself then He was commanding them to be led by His Spirit - which is a credential of a true child of God (Rm. 8:14) - who received from the Lord Jesus further revelation, (John 16:13,14) and by which Matthew 28:19,20 is fulfilled, thus the Lord Jesus did indeed order his Apostles (and certain other inspired disciples to write). Meanwhile, as said, the whole attempt at arguing that since the apostles taught the word of God orally, then whatever Rome says is the word of God is indeed just that, fails for while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, yet even Rome does not presume its popes and ecumenical councils do so either in declaring what they "infallibly" assert is the word of God." Thus Catholicism must rely on its "premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity, but which is nowhere exampled, taught or promised [in Scripture]. And in fact, God's means of preservation of faith required the raising of men (prophets and apostles) which reproved valid magisterial power."
" If reading the Bible were a necessary means " You quote Luke 24 - which is about Jesus expounding the scriptures to the Apostles - i.e. explaining to them. Nothing that "reading" the scriptures was a necessary means of salvation
Actually he said "a necessary means" and which it has been and can be for many, such as prisoners who never heard or will have contact with preachers. But I was responding to this arguing against the necessity of writing as God's chosen means of preservation, which the Lord used and opened the minds of disciples to in Lk. 24. However, t as I expressed in response to #8, Sola Scriptura does not teach that one must have his own copy of Scripture and be able to read it in order to be saved and grown in grace. Thus SS preachers can preach salvation and disciple others who do not even know how to read, and even enjoin "stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:15) under the premise that, as with the apostles, what was taught is Scriptural.'
Similarly John 20 does NOT in any way state that "reading is a necessary means of salvation" - nor could that be construed by reading the text
No, but as part of his overall argument, the OP would go on to cite that text to support the premise of the necessity of preaching oral tradition, charging (under #4) that the "Bible does not contain all of Our Lord's doctrines," while John does not say that "many other doctrines truly did Jesus teach in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book," and John affirms writing as providing what is necessary for salvation in Jn. 20:31.
2. "How many of the Apostles actually wrote..." well, I agree with you - it isn't an argument for or against sola scriptura. Thaddeus and Bartholomew went to preach to the Jews and gentiles in Iraq and Iran while Thomas went to preach and convert Jews and gentiles in southern India The fact that they didn't write anything
There simply is no "fact that they didn't write anything," just that we have no record, and the argument that reliance upon oral preaching is contrary to SS, as if classic Prot missionaries required everyone to be able to read the Bible to be saved, is simply not true, and is not what confessions as Westminster state, as said (and the contextual nature of its polemic is also ignored).
2.b. "If the Bible privately.." [COMMENT: If the Bible privately interpreted was to be a Divine rule of Faith, the apostles would have been derelict in their duty when instead, some of them adopted preaching only.] ebb is correct on this - Thaddeus and Bartholomew and Thomas at the most would have had the Jewish scriptures to rely upon when they visited the Jews in Iraq, Iran and India. But they also converted gentiles there.
Wrong, for it is sophistry to argue against SS as if it required reading, much less having the whole Bible, to be converted. As well as inferring that SS was contrary to the teaching office of the church (but not as possessing ensured perpetual magisterial veracity (EPMV) of office, even at least salvific) which is affirmed, and exampled.
And to argue that subjecting oral preaching to the test of conflation with Scripture, or by supporting teaching by ones own interpretation of it (= "a Divine rule of Faith") is wrong means that the noble Breans were, as well as invalidating the NT church, seeing as it began in dissent from the historical magisterium, following itinerant preachers (and The Preacher) who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Thanks and Glory to God!
You quote Acts 17:2 -- but that was Paul, an erudite Pharisee arguing with erudite Pharisees and Sadducees
Please. That is simply careless or desperate eisegesis. There simply is no mention of Paul arguing with Pharisees and Sadducees (neither of which are even named here nor until Acts 23), but that finding "a synagogue of the Jews" "Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2 ) While the reaction to this 3 week exposition was that of "the Jews which believed not" persecuting them, (Acts 17:5) there simply is no mention or inference of Paul arguing with Pharisees and Sadducees.
And in further support of my argument here that "the apostles would have been derelict in their duty by not doing as the leaders Peter and Paul did, affirming the written word as being the more sure word of prophecy, (2 Peter 1:19) and which "reasoned out of the Scriptures" (Acts 17:2) as the Spirit of Christ affirmed those who tested their preaching by the Scriptures, (Acts 17:11) then we have disciple Apollos, who " mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)
There is the fact that natural revelation and signs and wonders were used as affirmative testimony for Gentiles, yet as the devil will yet show, (2 Thessalonians 2:10) and the protesting lost souls of Matthew 7:22 attest, such by themselves are not sufficient for establishing doctrine.
Then you falsely say "sola ecclesia" - which is not what the Church nor ebb has said. The Church does not say "sola ecclesia" -- you did that
You have to have an alternative to SS, and which is indeed "sola ecclesia" and actually "sola Roma," for as argued, the Catholic church gave us the Bible and Tradition, and is the sure supreme judge on not only its contents but also its authoritative meaning. And thus as the supplier, discerner and judge, then it alone is the sole, supreme and sufficient standard for faith and morals. Thus, "Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law;... all interpretation is foolish and false which...is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.(Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)
Next, you make a completely spurious - meaning false statement of "the word of God consists of and means what Rome says, according to her interpretation" -- false - this was as per councils, not "Rome" The only ones claiming that the Bible says only what they themselves say tend to be sola scriptura folks
That is semantic sophistry, as it charging a statement that "Washington raises taxes" is completely spurious because it was Congress.
Moreover, if you think referring to "Roman Catholic" is an invention of Protestantism, then you are wrong.
3. "Jesus founded a Church" "an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established " -- again, that's false -- the Pentateuch were accepted completely, but there was no sense of "Jewish canon" until after the destruction of Herod's temple in 70 AD The writings of the Prophets were not all accepted by all the sects of 2nd temple Jews Rabbi Jacob Neusner holds that the Jewish canon was closed only in the 2nd century AD
Again, that's false, as the invocation itself of the Lord Jesus of "all the scriptures" (And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself (Luke 24:27) manifests that an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established " How could the Lord reference an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings if there was none?
How could He open "their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures" (Luke 24:45) if there was no established authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings?
How could He reprove the Sadducees as"not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" . (Matthew 22:29) ) if there was no established authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings?
You are simply relying on one class of scholarship, vs. Scripture, as well as other scholarship. Such as concludes:
"In all likelihood Josephus' twenty-two-book canon was the Pharisaic canon, but it is to be doubted that it was also the canon of all Jews in the way that he has intended." (Timothy H. Lim: The Formation of the Jewish Canon; Yale University Press, Oct 22, 2013. P. 49) “The theory of the majority canon, therefore, is amply supported. Before the emergence of this Pharisaic canon at the end of the first century CE, there was a diversity of collections of authoritative scriptures.” (P. 185) By the first century, it is clear that the Pharisees held to the twenty-two or twenty-four book canon, and it was this canon that eventually became the canon of Rabbinic Judaism because the majority of those who founded the Jewish faith after the destruction of Jerusalem were Pharisees. The Jewish canon was not directed from above but developed from the "bottom-up." (Timothy H. Lim, University of Edinburgh: Understanding the Emergence of the Jewish Canon, ANCIENT JEW REVIEW, December 2, 2015) [Note however, that he is mistaken about Yavneh (Jamnia)] The evidence clearly supports the theory that the Hebrew canon was established long before the end of the 1st century AD, although it is more likely already in the 4th century BC. (https://www.josh.org/) There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed. Some scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty (140–40 BCE), while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or even later. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon)
Heinrich Graetz concluded in 1871 that there had been a Council of Jamnia (or Yavne in Hebrew)
The theory of a council of Jamnia that finalized the canon, first proposed by Heinrich Graetz in 1871,[5] It was popular for much of the 20th century. However, it has been increasingly questioned since the 1960s onward, and the theory has now been largely discredited.[6]...According to Lewis: The concept of the Council of Jamnia is an hypothesis to explain the canonization of the Writings (the third division of the Hebrew Bible) resulting in the closing of the Hebrew canon. ...These ongoing debates suggest the paucity of evidence on which the hypothesis of the Council of Jamnia rests and raise the question whether it has not served its usefulness and should be relegated to the limbo of unestablished hypotheses. It should not be allowed to be considered a consensus established by mere repetition of assertion....The 20th-century evangelical scholar F. F. Bruce thought that it was "probably unwise to talk as if there were a Council or Synod of Jamnia which laid down the limits of the Old Testament canon."[15] Other scholars have since joined in and today the theory is largely discredited.[1][2][3] Some hold that the Hebrew canon was established during the Hasmonean dynasty (140–40 BCE).[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia)
Next, your claim that "Truth is founded in scripture" contradicts Paul. The Old Testament books provided verification for the claims of Jesus as the anointed one "Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture" - scripture was the means for validating, not for dissemination of salvation as is abundantly clear in the entire book of Acts of the Apostles validating, not for dissemination
"Truth is founded in scripture" contradicts Paul? And where did I even say the gospel itself was written prior to Paul's preaching, vs. that it depended upon it?
Argument 4 "Difference" I don't get ebb or your points -- there is no one "Protestant Bible" in any case as some denominations have their own interpretations
You mean you conflate different interpretations as meaning different Bible? And the Protestant canon is more settled than in Catholicism, broadly defined.
comment "How would it have been possiblef or 2nd century christians" ebb is correct that there was NO private interpretation of the teachings of Christ - except by heretics like Marcion etc. 2nd century Christians were taught by the spoken word - the bishops were very active in going around trying to ensure that only the exact teachings of Jesus were repeated. There were few written texts until Mark's writing in 50 AD
Actually it is the faithful teachings of Jesus and the Bible that SS expect of Scripture, and such see far more censure from other evangelicals for aberrant views than RCs, while Catholics are allowed great liberty in interpretation, as is the living magisterium according to your TradCath sects.
Meanwhile, distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels) Catholics themselves can and do engage in
You have taken enough hours from me this morning with my stiff arthritic fingers in response to your fallacious attempts at refutation.
I am smarter for reading it (and more confused at the same time...but that confusion might pass).;-)
“”No that is simply not true”
wrong — ebb goes on to say that nor is there any record that He ordered his Apostles to write; He did command them to teach and to preach. which is true.
You quote from the book of Revelation, not from the Gospels.
Sorry, but again, you are wrong
“”No that is simply not true”
wrong — ebb goes on to say that nor is there any record that He ordered his Apostles to write; He did command them to teach and to preach. which is true.
You quote from the book of Revelation, not from the Gospels.
Sorry, but again, you are wrong —> Jesus said
Mark 16:15
He said to them, “Go into all the world and >preach> the gospel to all creation.
” But I was responding to this arguing against the necessity of writing as God’s chosen means of preservation, which the Lord used and opened the minds of disciples to in Lk. 24”
Actually you didn’t.
you went against the point raised by ebb that “ If reading the Bible were a necessary means “ You quote Luke 24 - which is about Jesus expounding the scriptures to the Apostles - i.e. explaining to them. Nothing that “reading” the scriptures was a necessary means of salvation
Sorry, but you were wrong again and trying to change and interpretation of what you already interpreted is a perfect example of the indictment of personal interpretation.
No one is saying about having a “own copy of Scripture” but against your implication that one can “read your way to salvation”
We have no record of them writing and it's also pretty likely that they didn't write - otherwise we would have texts handed down.
So your statement is probable but not very possible
"classic Prot" -- what are those? Luther who believed in the True Presence in the Eucharist? Or Servetus of the Brethrens? You're just using incorrect words as the norm
The fact that Thaddeus and Bart and Thomas didn't write down texts (or they would have been handed down in the churches they founded) is a strike against your contention that one must have a written down scripture to be able to retain adherence to the core tenets of Christianity
It is sophistry to try and prove Sola scriptura by just looking at the 16th century godmen
Next, you dismiss the fact that Acts 17:2 is Paul, an erudite Pharisee arguing with erudite Pharisees and Sadducees
You have to have an alternative to SS, -- no you don't -- you have "Not SOLA" scriptura i.e. not scripture ALONE --> just like the pre-tribulation rapture or the inventios of the mormons, Sola scriptura is an invention that says "you need to have an alternative to my new invention"
That is a fallacious statement
"Jesus founded a Church" "an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established " -- again, that's false -- the Pentateuch were accepted completely, but there was no sense of "Jewish canon" until after the destruction of Herod's temple in 70 AD The writings of the Prophets were not all accepted by all the sects of 2nd temple Jews Rabbi Jacob Neusner holds that the Jewish canon was closed only in the 2nd century AD
The fact is that Josephus writes one point of view - whereas other Talmudic scholars differ
Your fingers are stiff with arthritis as you write long posts that are against what Christ Himself has taught