The strengths of Sola Scriptura

And we see sola scriptura testing of all doctrine in Acts 17:11 where even nonChristians were able to use it to validate or reject the teaching of the Apostle Paul.


"they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul , WERE SO" Acts 17:11

Even though the synagogue magisterium rejected Paul, yet many of the members of that synagogue studied scripture and accepted his doctrine, the Gospel

Always in His Presence said:

I wrote this a little while ago and present it here for discussion:

Sola Scriptura - The Sufficiency of Scripture:

Sola Scriptura — the conviction that Scripture alone is the supreme and sufficient authority for Christian faith and practice — stands as one of the Reformation's most enduring and defensible contributions to Christian thought. Though contested, the doctrine carries compelling strengths that merit serious consideration.

First, sola Scriptura provides a fixed, accessible standard against which all teaching can be measured. Unlike church councils, papal decrees, or evolving tradition, the biblical text remains constant. This stability protects against doctrinal drift and the gradual accumulation of human innovations that can obscure the Gospel. When Reformers like Luther and Calvin demanded a return to Scripture, they were insisting that the church be accountable to something outside itself — a safeguard against institutional self-justification.

Second, the doctrine honors the nature of Scripture as divinely inspired and therefore uniquely authoritative. If the Bible is the Word of God as it claims to be (2 Timothy 3:16–17), then no subsequent tradition can stand above it. Sola Scriptura does not dismiss tradition but subordinates it, treating patristic writing and creedal theology as valuable guides rather than co-equal authorities. This is a theologically coherent position: the creature cannot override the Creator's revealed word.

Third, sola Scriptura democratizes access to divine truth. By insisting that Scripture is perspicuous — clear in its essential teachings — the doctrine empowers ordinary believers to read, interpret, and apply God's word without requiring mediation through an authoritative magisterium. The Reformation's push for vernacular Bible translation flowed directly from this conviction, expanding literacy and fostering a culture of personal accountability to truth.

Finally, sola Scriptura has historically served as a powerful tool for reform and renewal. Movements from the Reformation to modern revivals have found in Scripture the resources to challenge corrupt institutions and call the church back to its foundations — a living testimony to the doctrine's enduring power.

Click to expand...

The whole point of scripture alone is not that the Christian uses scripture alone, most of us use study aids like commentaries and dictionaries, but that everything is tested against scripture. The early church fathers operated under this exact premise which is why we call scripture “Holy Scriptures” across most mainstream denominations. Here are a couple of citations from the early church fathers on the importance of the Holy Scriptures as the rule for dictating doctrine and battling heresy.

“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things.” -St. Athanasius, Letter, De Synodis, Par. 6; 296 – 373 A.D.

“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.) 313 – 386 A.D.

“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC). 330-379 A.D.

Always in His Presence said:

I wrote this a little while ago and present it here for discussion:

Sola Scriptura - The Sufficiency of Scripture:

Sola Scriptura — the conviction that Scripture alone is the supreme and sufficient authority for Christian faith and practice — stands as one of the Reformation's most enduring and defensible contributions to Christian thought. Though contested, the doctrine carries compelling strengths that merit serious consideration.

First, sola Scriptura provides a fixed, accessible standard against which all teaching can be measured. Unlike church councils, papal decrees, or evolving tradition, the biblical text remains constant. This stability protects against doctrinal drift and the gradual accumulation of human innovations that can obscure the Gospel. When Reformers like Luther and Calvin demanded a return to Scripture, they were insisting that the church be accountable to something outside itself — a safeguard against institutional self-justification.

Second, the doctrine honors the nature of Scripture as divinely inspired and therefore uniquely authoritative. If the Bible is the Word of God as it claims to be (2 Timothy 3:16–17), then no subsequent tradition can stand above it. Sola Scriptura does not dismiss tradition but subordinates it, treating patristic writing and creedal theology as valuable guides rather than co-equal authorities. This is a theologically coherent position: the creature cannot override the Creator's revealed word.

Third, sola Scriptura democratizes access to divine truth. By insisting that Scripture is perspicuous — clear in its essential teachings — the doctrine empowers ordinary believers to read, interpret, and apply God's word without requiring mediation through an authoritative magisterium. The Reformation's push for vernacular Bible translation flowed directly from this conviction, expanding literacy and fostering a culture of personal accountability to truth.

Finally, sola Scriptura has historically served as a powerful tool for reform and renewal. Movements from the Reformation to modern revivals have found in Scripture the resources to challenge corrupt institutions and call the church back to its foundations — a living testimony to the doctrine's enduring power.

Click to expand...

There are a great many Christians who do not agree with your stated theology. Maybe even a majority in today's world. And they offer reasons such as the following for disagreeing.

Xeno.of.athens said:

There are a great many Christians who do not agree with your stated theology. Maybe even a majority in today's world. And they offer reasons such as the following for disagreeing.

From a Catholic perspective, while Sola Scriptura correctly gives emphasis to the supreme authority of Scripture, it overlooks the essential role of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium in preserving and interpreting divine revelation. The Catholic Church teaches that both Scripture and Tradition together constitute the one deposit of faith (cf. Dei Verbum, 9), and that the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, authentically interprets this deposit to safeguard doctrinal unity and prevent error (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15). Scripture alone, without this living teaching authority, risks fragmentation and subjective interpretation, as seen in the many divergent Protestant traditions.​

Moreover, the claim that Scripture is entirely clear and accessible to all believers (perspicuity) is nuanced in Catholic teaching. While Scripture contains all necessary truths for salvation, some passages require authoritative interpretation to be properly understood (cf. Dei Verbum, 12). The Church supports vernacular translations and personal engagement with Scripture but insists this must be done within the context of the Church’s teaching authority to maintain the integrity of the Gospel message. Thus, the Catholic response affirms Scripture’s primacy but rejects its sufficiency apart from Tradition and the Magisterium.​

Click to expand...

Most ECF’s disagree with you. The reformation merely brought the importance of scripture back to the original use. Most mainstream churches today also disagree with Catholic tradition and the power of the magisterium.

Always in His Presence said:

I wrote this a little while ago and present it here for discussion:

Sola Scriptura - The Sufficiency of Scripture:

Click to expand...

Well, many churches refer also to the old councils for interpretations, so it is clear that it is not only the Scripture, but also the intrepretation that matter, especially taking into account that the Scripture has both letter and the spirit, and thus it needs intepretation in many cases, and so the church is not only up to the text of the Word itself, but is also, even more so, up to the authentic interpretation or the doctrine.

Always in His Presence said:

I wrote this a little while ago and present it here for discussion:

Sola Scriptura - The Sufficiency of Scripture:

Sola Scriptura — the conviction that Scripture alone is the supreme and sufficient authority for Christian faith and practice — stands as one of the Reformation's most enduring and defensible contributions to Christian thought. Though contested, the doctrine carries compelling strengths that merit serious consideration.

First, sola Scriptura provides a fixed, accessible standard against which all teaching can be measured. Unlike church councils, papal decrees, or evolving tradition, the biblical text remains constant. This stability protects against doctrinal drift and the gradual accumulation of human innovations that can obscure the Gospel. When Reformers like Luther and Calvin demanded a return to Scripture, they were insisting that the church be accountable to something outside itself — a safeguard against institutional self-justification.

Second, the doctrine honors the nature of Scripture as divinely inspired and therefore uniquely authoritative. If the Bible is the Word of God as it claims to be (2 Timothy 3:16–17), then no subsequent tradition can stand above it. Sola Scriptura does not dismiss tradition but subordinates it, treating patristic writing and creedal theology as valuable guides rather than co-equal authorities. This is a theologically coherent position: the creature cannot override the Creator's revealed word.

Third, sola Scriptura democratizes access to divine truth. By insisting that Scripture is perspicuous — clear in its essential teachings — the doctrine empowers ordinary believers to read, interpret, and apply God's word without requiring mediation through an authoritative magisterium. The Reformation's push for vernacular Bible translation flowed directly from this conviction, expanding literacy and fostering a culture of personal accountability to truth.

Finally, sola Scriptura has historically served as a powerful tool for reform and renewal. Movements from the Reformation to modern revivals have found in Scripture the resources to challenge corrupt institutions and call the church back to its foundations — a living testimony to the doctrine's enduring power.

Click to expand...

I don't think easy 'doctrines' should ever replace the difficult work required for ongoing Historical and Hermeneutical work, even where the Bible is concerned.

In sum, there are a number of existential, social, and practical assumptions loaded into Sola Scriptura which don't fully bear out and, therefore, prevent Sola Scriptura from serving robustly as an 'official doctrine.' One could cite it as a preferred heuristical indicator of how any of us might value the Bible, but requiring it to be a doctrinal descriptor is mistaken in my estimation.

But that's my view and no one has to agree with it.

Always in His Presence said:

First, sola Scriptura provides a fixed, accessible standard against which all teaching can be measured. Unlike church councils, papal decrees, or evolving tradition, the biblical text remains constant.

Click to expand...

Let's consider this claim. There are multiple manuscript traditions with slight differences between them. Most Protestants today use versions of the Bible that rely primarily on the Masoretic Text, but historically, Christians used the Septuagint and looked upon the Hebrew text with suspicion since it was preserved by people hostile to Christianity.

"Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings : for why do you, who know not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble yourself in vain about those which are disputed? Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters.

...

"Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if you are desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave , and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle ; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament." - St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Homilies 4.33, 35

So, does the unchanging biblical text include Baruch and Lamentations? Does it include the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Youths, the supernumerary Psalm, the story of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, the parts of Esther that exist in the Septuagint but not the MT? Christian Tradition says yes, Protestants say no. Further, does it include the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation? For Protestants, it very nearly didn't. So even if the text of these works themselves doesn't change (ignoring minor textual variants among copies that don't change the meaning), there may be effectively a change in the text if you change what you refer to as "the text."

Always in His Presence said:

Second, the doctrine honors the nature of Scripture as divinely inspired and therefore uniquely authoritative. If the Bible is the Word of God as it claims to be (2 Timothy 3:16–17), then no subsequent tradition can stand above it. Sola Scriptura does not dismiss tradition but subordinates it, treating patristic writing and creedal theology as valuable guides rather than co-equal authorities. This is a theologically coherent position: the creature cannot override the Creator's revealed word.

Click to expand...

This argument requires that "subsequent tradition" have no divine inspiration, but even in Scripture we see that the Church does have divine inspiration, for example in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem, the decision is delivered with, "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..."

If there is divine inspiration in Holy Tradition, then it is not automatically subordinate to Scripture. This is why St. Cyril can say both that his own teaching has to be justified with biblical support and that you have to be subject to the Church.

Always in His Presence said:

Third, sola Scriptura democratizes access to divine truth. By insisting that Scripture is perspicuous — clear in its essential teachings — the doctrine empowers ordinary believers to read, interpret, and apply God's word without requiring mediation through an authoritative magisterium.

Click to expand...

It remains to be shown how this is a strength.

Always in His Presence said:

Finally, sola Scriptura has historically served as a powerful tool for reform and renewal. Movements from the Reformation to modern revivals have found in Scripture the resources to challenge corrupt institutions and call the church back to its foundations — a living testimony to the doctrine's enduring power.

Click to expand...

If these challenges and calls are accomplished through endless schism, I don't think that's a good thing, nor has any reform or renewal actually been accomplished, only the foundation of new institutions.

Protestants have historically made great contributions to biblical translation and printing because of their focus on Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith. I would offer those as strengths instead of the ones you've listed.

Hentenza said:

Most ECF’s disagree with you.

Click to expand...

Cherry picked quotes devoid of context. The ECF's do not teach Solo Scriptura.

Hentenza said:

The reformation merely brought the importance of scripture back to the original use.

Click to expand...

Scripture is described as "profitable" in 2 Tim 3:16, whereas the Church, which is the Body of Christ, is called the "pillar and ground of truth" in 1 Tim 3:15.

Sola Scriptura fails because it's adherents have produced competing, incompatible doctrines while all claiming the same authority of Scripture.

BobRyan said:

And we see sola scriptura testing of all doctrine in Acts 17:11 where even nonChristians were able to use it to validate or reject the teaching of the Apostle Paul.


"they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul , WERE SO" Acts 17:11

Even though the synagogue magisterium rejected Paul, yet many of the members of that synagogue studied scripture and accepted his doctrine, the Gospel

Click to expand...

I have often seen Paul's encounter with the Bereans used as a proof-text to support sola-Scriptura, and I always have to just scratch my head. Under even modest scrutiny it doesn't hold up. In fact, it proves the opposite.

Paul first visits the Jews in Thessalonia (Acts 17:1-9) and we're told he argued with them from the Scriptures for three weeks trying to convince them that the Messiah they had been promised had to suffer, die and rise from the dead. The concept of a suffering Messiah had not been taught to them by their Jewish leadership. Paul offered this view of their Scriptures, arguing with them that his interpretation was the correct one. And he also preached the Gospel to them -- “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ. (verse 3)". They are the ones who practice sola-Scriptura here. They reject the ORAL proclamation of the Gospel as presented by St. Paul. They also reject the teaching authority of the Church in the person of St. Paul when they choose their own interpretation of what the Old Testament Scriptures meant over that of St. Paul.

When he gets to Berea, we are told that they were more noble than the Thessalonians because they "received the word with all eagerness" (verse 11). They received the "word", the "logos", the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And that "word" came to them in ORAL form only, because there were no New Testament scriptures written yet. They did search the Old Testament Scriptures to see if St. Paul was correct about the suffering Messiah. His view contradicted their interpretation. But there was absolutely nothing in those Scriptures that could validate St. Paul's testimony that the PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST had fulfilled those prophecies, that he had suffered, died and risen from the dead. If the Bereans were truly sola-Scriptura they would have had to reject St. Paul's testimony that Jesus had risen from the dead because they would have had no way to validate that Truth in Scripture.

In a nutshell, the Bereans
1) Set aside their own intepretation of the Old Testament Scriptures about the Messiah and accepted the interpretation of the teaching authority of the Church in the person of St. Paul
2) Accepted as Truth the resurrection of the person of Jesus Christ, which they would not have been able to find in Scripture at all. They accepted the ORAL proclamation of the Gospel and embraced a dogma that could not be found in Scripture.

So in what world are the Bereans the model for sola-Scriptura? If they had been, they never could have become Christians.

The well known Protestant and Reformed pastor R. C. Sproul had this to say about a Protestant understanding of sola-Scriptura:

“For the classic Protestant, though the individual believer has the right to the private interpretation of Scripture, he is capable of misinterpreting the Bible. But while he has the ability to misinterpret Scripture, he does not have the right to do it. That is, with the right of private interpretation comes the responsibility of making an accurate interpretation. We never have the right to distort the teaching of Scripture. Both sides agree that the individual is fallible when seeking to understand Scripture, but historic Protestantism limits the scope of infallibility to the Scriptures themselves. Church tradition and church creeds can err. Individual interpreters of Scripture can err. It is the Scriptures alone that are without error.”


This quote accurately reflects the standard Protestant position that only Scripture is infallible. But it also highlights the true flaw with sola-Scriptura. If we accept Scripture alone is infallible, then as Sproul indicates it is necessary to accept "Church tradition and church creeds can err," “Individual interpreters of Scripture can err," and the "individual is fallible when seeking to understand Scripture."

The only logical conclusion therefore for those who hold to sola-Scriptura is no one can ever have any certainty as to the meaning of Scripture. Nobody. Individuals may sincerely believe they have interpreted Scripture correctly. They may sincerely believe they have received special guidance from the Holy Spirit regarding the meaning of Scripture. But they also have to accept they are fallible when seeking to understanding Scripture and can be in error. When the authority of the Church is rejected as being infallible, then the authority of ALL must be rejected to be infallible.

prodromos said:

Cherry picked quotes devoid of context. The ECF's do not teach Solo Scriptura.

Click to expand...

The context is there. I never claimed that the ECFs taught SS since the terminology was developed post reformation. What the ECFs did was rely on scripture to develop doctrine and battle heresy. Even when the canon was being developed and the arguments for or against the deuterocanonical was debated the division was between the books that were profitable to read but should not be used for doctrine and the accepted canon that could be used for doctrine. I’m not going to argue for or against Tradition, that is no longer profitable for me, but the Holy Scriptures should be recognized for their authority.

prodromos said:

Scripture is described as "profitable" in 2 Tim 3:16, whereas the Church, which is the Body of Christ, is called the "pillar and ground of truth" in 1 Tim 3:15.

Click to expand...

Which church? Yours? Are the rest of us not a pillar and ground of truth as part of the body of Christ also? Let me remind you that there is only one heaven where all of the body of Christ will go and the gates of hell have not prevailed against His Church. I’m sure the Lord knows what He is doing.

prodromos said:

Sola Scriptura fails because it's adherents have produced competing, incompatible doctrines while all claiming the same authority of Scripture.

Click to expand...

As have those that rely on Tradition. After all, your church and the Catholic Church are the first denominations. Secondly, among the mainstream churches the differences are not that great and most is a matter of interpretation. Your church guys are not smarter than my church guys or anyone else’s.

narnia59 said:

In a nutshell, the Bereans
1) Set aside their own intepretation of the Old Testament Scriptures about the Messiah and accepted the interpretation of the teaching authority of the Church in the person of St. Paul

Click to expand...

It’s worth remembering that only some of the Bereans accepted what Saint Paul taught. Even though the Berean Jewish community listened to Saint Paul peacefully—which was admirable compared to the violent reaction in Thessalonica—not all of them came to believe.

narnia59 said:

2) Accepted as Truth the resurrection of the person of Jesus Christ, which they would not have been able to find in Scripture at all. They accepted the ORAL proclamation of the Gospel and embraced a dogma that could not be found in Scripture.

So in what world are the Bereans the model for sola-Scriptura? If they had been, they never could have become Christians.

Click to expand...

amen

Always in His Presence said:

There are codex's

Click to expand...

codices

Always in His Presence said:

200 plus years older than the Septuagint.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying there aren't, I'm saying the early Christians, including the Apostles, didn't use those codices, they used the Septuagint.

Always in His Presence said:

The bolded quip prevents me from interacting with you further.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, do you think the people whose holy book says Jesus is boiling in excrement in hell for claiming to be God were friendly to Christianity?

Hopefully there are others who are actually interested in discussion and not just finding the quickest way out of having to address the substance of any criticisms of your system.

jas3 said:

I'm not saying there aren't, I'm saying the early Christians, including the Apostles, didn't use those codices, they used the Septuagint.

Click to expand...

Yes — the Babylonian Talmud contains a passage (Gittin 56b–57a) in which a figure called Yeshu ha‑Notzri is described as being punished “in boiling excrement.” But whether this “Yeshu” refers to Jesus of Nazareth is strongly disputed by modern historians and modern Jewish scholars.

In Gittin 57a, the Talmud recounts a story where Onkelos uses necromancy to summon several deceased figures. When he summons “Yeshu the Nazarene,” the text says that this figure is punished “in boiling excrement” because he “mocked the words of the Sages.” [ Gittin 57a | Sefaria Library ]

Medieval Christian polemicists and censors assumed “Yeshu” = Jesus.
Some modern writers still make this identification.

Tradition within the Catholic and Orthodox communities suggests that the modern scholars are not right.

Hentenza said:

What the ECFs did was rely on scripture to develop doctrine and battle heresy.

Click to expand...

In large part, yes, but not exclusively. Sts. Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Irenaeus of Lyons, for example, all made arguments on the basis of the authority of the Church.

Hentenza said:

I’m not going to argue for or against Tradition, that is no longer profitable for me, but the Holy Scriptures should be recognized for their authority.

Click to expand...

No one is saying that Sacred Scripture lacks authority in any way. The debate is not about the inerrancy of Scripture, it's about whether there are any other infallible rules of faith, such as the ecumenical councils or other universal teachings of the Church.

Hentenza said:

Which church? Yours? Are the rest of us not a pillar and ground of truth as part of the body of Christ also?

Click to expand...

Correct, there is only one Body of Christ and it's not an invisible union of denominations teaching contradictory things. There is "one body... One Lord, one faith, one baptism," not many contradictory faiths or concepts of baptism.

Hentenza said:

As have those that rely on Tradition. After all, your church and the Catholic Church are the first denominations. Secondly, among the mainstream churches the differences are not that great and most is a matter of interpretation.

Click to expand...

False equivalence. Catholics and Orthodox disagree on things like the authority of certain bishops relative to others, Protestants can't even agree on whether there's such an office as "bishop."

jas3 said:

Let's consider this claim. There are multiple manuscript traditions with slight differences between them. Most Protestants today use versions of the Bible that rely primarily on the Masoretic Text, but historically, Christians used the Septuagint and looked upon the Hebrew text with suspicion since it was preserved by people hostile to Christianity.

"Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings : for why do you, who know not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble yourself in vain about those which are disputed? Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters.

Click to expand...

1. The OT canon was grouped differently but had the same content. So 39 books for us, was was 22 for them.
2. The OT authors were all nonChristian Jews.
3. There is no question at all about the identity of the 27 books of the NT.
4. Paul says in Rom 3 that the Jews were given entire control of the OT canon by God.

The Jewish OT has the correct/accurate content and Josephus notes that it was unchanged for 400 years and kept in the Temple.

The Jews did not include apocryphal texts in the OT canon and neither do most Protestant Bibles.

BobRyan said:

1. The OT canon was grouped differently but had the same content. So 39 books for us, was was 22 for them.
2. The OT authors were all nonChristian Jews.
3. There is no question at all about the identity of the 27 books of the NT.
4. Paul says in Rom 3 that the Jews were given entire control of the OT canon by God.

The Jewish OT has the correct/accurate content and Josephus notes that it was unchanged for 400 years and kept in the Temple.

The Jews did not include apocryphal texts in the OT canon and neither do most Protestant Bibles.

Click to expand...

1. Not true - there were multiple versions of the Old Testament with different books and different organizations, and these have been historically attested (see the Dead Sea Scrolls). The early church mainly used the Septuagint but also used the Vulgate translation of St. Jerome and the Ethiopian Ge’ez translation and the West Syriac Peshitta translation, and there were a few other Greek translations of the Old Testament that were of some interest but are now lost.

2. That’s not true in that several books of the Old Testament were written by Hebrews who predated the division of Judaea and Israel, and St. Moses was of the tribe of Levi, and St. Joshua of the tribe of Ephraim. Additionally there is a discontinuity between the Jews who rejected Christ and the Jews who did not reject Him but rather lived before Him.

3. This was not always the case, as I have shown repeatedly. Prior to the canon being finalized by St. Athanasius, many felt that Revelation, Jude, 2 John, 3 John and 2 Peter should be excluded (which is why they’re absent from the original version of the Peshitta, being later added by the Syriac Orthodox Church using a translation by St. Thomas of Harqel; they were never added to the Eastern versions of the Peshitta used by the Assyrians) and others felt that Patristic writings such as 1 Clement or the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas should be included, while still others desired to include books deemed apocryphal by St. Athanasius such as 1 Barnabas and Laodiceans, for example. Nor diid this issue always remain settled, in that Martin Luther for a time wanted to remove Revelation, Jude, Hebrews and especially James from the New Testament but was fortunately persuaded not to do this.

The importance of the Athanasian canon cannot be understated, for only the defender of the faith at the Council of Nicaea, who was persecuted so viciously for his Trinitarianism and for upholding the doctrine of the Incarnation, had enough moral authority to be able to consolidate the early church around a single definitive New Testament canon (this combined with the contribution of Athanasius to the Nicene Creed, his book On the Incarnation, and his authorship of two shorter articles which were later combined to form Quincunque Vult, also known as the Athanasian Creed, make him of extreme importance to all Christians, which is why he is venerated as the Pillar of Orthodoxy, and regarding him, St.. Gregory the Theologian, who initially presided over the Council of Constantinople, the second ecumenical synod where the final version of the Nicene Creed was adopted, wrote of St. Athanasius that his name was synonymous with virtue.

4. St. Paul does not make that argument in Romans 3, indeed, he makes the opposite argument, and proceeds to reject legalism throughout the course of the following chapters, so this is an example of extreme eisegesis.

5. Josephus is not known to have been a Christian, and if not a Christian, belonged to the denomination that rejected Christ our True God; while its possible he may have been a crypto-Christian, since he doesn’t identify himself as such, his writings have no authority over Christians. Additionally of the ancient Christian manuscripts of the Bible that have survived none of them contain his canon, nor was that canon used in Christianity prior to the 16th century.

Additionally, even among the reformers, Calvin regarded Baruch as protocanon (as did St. Athanasius), Luther regarded Esther as not canonical and did not really want to include it in his Old Testament (of course, he was using the Masoretic version rather than the more compelling Septuagint version; Esther is one of the few cases where an Old Testament book differs substantially between the MT and the LXX and the LXX version is obviously preferable, since the Septuagint version places the emphasis on prayer and without it Esther becomes a nationalistic work.

The real reason why many Bibles lack the deuterocanonical books is because publishers of the KJV, despite the fact that the KJV includes them, sought to save money, since the Church of Scotland did not use those books, and neither did the Dissenters, and essentially the idea was to make a profit by not including those books except in more expensive bibles marketed towards Anglican clergy and parishes. For my part, I am extremely opposed to this since the KJV is incomplete without those books, and this constitutes imposing doctrine through the contents of a published Bible, which the KJV itself had intentionally sought not to do (being rather an attempt to replace the Geneva Bible with a refined version of the Bishop’s Bible, which is extremely similar to the kJV, so that all of the realms of King James would be using the same Bible, for which the Geneva Bible was unaceptable as it featured in-line Calvinist doctrinal notes; conversely the Challoner Douai Rheims features in-line Roman Catholic doctrinal notes; the KJV on the other hand has no in-line doctrinal notes and for this reason even the Eastern Orthodox use it (the KJV and the NKJV are the preferred English translations of the New Testament, although I personally have other preferences with regards to traditional language and modern language bibles, which I am allowed to have, but the use of the KJV as our New Testament is very satisfactory; additionally a modified version of its Psalter is very popular among the Orthodox, being released into the public domain.