A Biblical Defense of Bible Alone + The Anointing to Understand It

[BobRyan]

You've done no such thing. Your attempts to have all involved using quotes from the Bible, which begs the question.

What question? "Is the Bible God's Word?" -- Jesus said it is - see Mark 7:6-13.
No Catholics in the OT to say otherwise.
No Catholics in the NT to say otherwise.

 

[BobRyan]

Are you sure? Do you know what you are talking about?
Your argument should be based on scripture, and also it must not contradict history.

See the OP.

The fact is that the Bible was not put under one cover until the Councils of Hippo (AD 393) and 3rd Council of Carthage (AD 397) accepted the official list of books.

Irrelevant -- since the Bible was not written in the 4th century - and had been read since Moses started writing it in the OT.

Details matter.

Between AD 33 to AD 397, the faithful had no access to the Bible, so who was the authority?

Utter nonsense "27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures." Luke 24:27 -- no Catholics needed then either - to tell them what to read.

 

[BobRyan]

So you admit that you don't really have any Scriptural way of knowing what the Canon of Scripture is.

I admit your argument does not survive the details in Acts 17:11 and Luke 24:27 where we see them doing that which your argument claims should be "impossible". You claim that they can do no such thing until a council meets in the 4th century. It is there that we see them not only testing sola scriptura but using the phrase "in all the scriptures" which you claim they would never know about until the 4th century A.D.

Luke 24
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

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

1 Thess 2
13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

 

[chilehed]

What question? "Is the Bible God's Word?" -- Jesus said it is

That's not the question. The question, as I've repeatedly pointed out, is "how do we know what the Canon of Scripture is?"

 

[chilehed]

I admit your argument does not survive the details in Acts 17:11 and Luke 24:27

How do you know that either of those two books are actually Apostolic?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Jason0047, you reminded me of how Dr Scott Hahn was trying to defend Sola Scriptura:

The students were supposed to ask him a question or two. He said, "Can I first ask you a question, Professor Hahn? You know how Luther really had two slogans, not just sola fide, but the second slogan he used to revolt against Rome was sola Scriptura, the Bible alone. My question is, 'Where does the Bible teach that?'"

I looked at him with a blank stare. I could feel sweat coming to my forehead. I used to take pride in asking my professors the most stumping questions, but I never heard this one before. And so I heard myself say words that I had sworn I'd never speak; I said, "John, what a dumb question." He was not intimidated. He look at me and said, "Give me a dumb answer."

I said, "All right, I'll try." I just began to wing it. I said, "Well, Timothy 3:16 is the key: 'All Scripture is inspired of God and profitable for correction, for training and righteousness, for reproof that the man of God may be completely equipped for every good work....'"

He said, "Wait a second, that only says that Scripture is inspired and profitable; it doesn't say ONLY Scripture is inspired or even better, only Scripture's profitable for those things. We need other things like prayer," and then he said, "What about 2 Thessalonians 2:15?" I said, "What's that again?" He said, "Well, there Paul tells the Thessalonians that they have to hold fast, they have to cling to the traditions that Paul has taught them either in writing or by word of mouth." Whoa! I wasn't ready. I said, "Well, let's move on with the questions and answers; I'll deal with this next week. Let's go on."

Click to Read the Whole Story

The answer has already been largely given in responding (as here ) to specious arguments against SS, while the sophist Scott still often relies in strawmen to support his unScriptural Catholic distinctive teachings.

Answer me these questions (for all contenders):

1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving what He told man as well as what man does: oral transmission or writing?
   
2. What became the established supreme authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or "it is written/Scripture?"
   
3. Which came first: the written word of God and an authoritative body of it, or the NT church?
   
4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings await the church and require an infallible magisterium?
   
5. Which transcendent sure source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating her claims to the nation that was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?
6. Was the veracity of Scripture subject to testing by the oral words of men or vice versa?
7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and sure record of what the NT church believed?
   
9. Do you think sola scripture must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards sources of express Divine revelation, and which materially provides for such things as were listed above?
11. What wholly inspired oral source has spoken to man the public word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
    
12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?
13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?
14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared she it cannot err in such a matter?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

chilehed said: ↑

So you admit that you don't really have any Scriptural way of knowing what the Canon of Scripture is.

I admit your argument does not survive the details in Acts 17:11 and Luke 24:27 where we see them doing that which your argument claims should be "impossible". You claim that they can do no such thing until a council meets in the 4th century. It is there that we see them not only testing sola scriptura but using the phrase "in all the scriptures" which you claim they would never know about until the 4th century A.D.

Luke 24
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

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

1 Thess 2
13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

Indeed Bob, the noble Bereans simply could not have been searching the Scriptures since in Catholic theology people have to be told what the the contents of revelation are by people who have received in from on high, (Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72; Triablogue: The Magisterial cat-and-mouse game) and "no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium)

Therefore (Catholics who understand that logical fallacy of proving the church by the Scriptures and the Scriptures by the church) "when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration. (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility; CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility)

Meaning souls are not to be persuaded to place faith in Rome by appeal to Scripture as Scripture since they are held to need "The Church®" to recognize what writings are of God (and thus their codependency on her).

Instead, appeal is to be made to Scripture merely as reliable historical document, by which the souls is to see warrant for submission of faith to said Church, and thereby know what is of God.

Which means that while it is disallowed that one can ascertain what writings are of God, yet it is expected that they can ascertain what church is of God. However, when the subject sees that Catholic distinctives are not what manifest in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels) then Catholics often basically argue the historical absurdity, "we gave you the Bible...we know what it means, not you."

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Are you sure? Do you know what you are talking about?
Your argument should be based on scripture, and also it must not contradict history.
But you made up your own version of history when you said "that a body of wholly inspired-of-God authoritative writings was discerned and established before a church even existed"

Are you sure? Do you know what you are talking about? I did certainly not make up my own version of history when I said "that a body of wholly inspired-of-God authoritative writings was discerned and established before a church even existed," for this is incontrovertibly manifest by the multitude of quoted and references to writings of such in the NT.

Thus it is you who simply does not know what he is talking about.

The fact is that the Bible was not put under one cover until the Councils of Hippo (AD 393) and 3rd Council of Carthage (AD 397) accepted the official list of books.

Which evidenced that it is you who simply does not know what he is talking about. Placing Bible under one cover simply does not negate the fact that an established body of wholly inspired-of-God authoritative writings already existed! And which means that since a body of these writings had been established then it means that a larger canon could also be establishe

Between AD 33 to AD 397, the faithful had no access to the Bible, so who was the authority?

The same supreme substantive body as before, that is the Scriptures, which materially provides for more being added.

It is true that to some degree the written word of God was sometimes supplemented by conflative wholly inspired oral teaching by men such as the apostles, but which is what Rome does not engage in. Instead, she only resorts to claiming that her popes and councils possess ensured infallibility when speaking according to a certain criteria, but even preservation from error is simply not the same as being the wholly inspired word of God. I have a watch that correctly tells me the time twice a day..

Of course, if we needed all the books that Rome considers to be the written word of God then AD 397 simply is not going to do, for in reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther in 1546.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

PeaceByJesus said: ↑
Of course there is clearly a Scriptural way, as I have shown repeatedly.

You've done no such thing. Your attempts to have all involved using quotes from the Bible, which begs the question.

Wrong again. I used quotes from Scripture, which class of revelation existed before Rome, and the discerning of which does not require faith in her. If a body of wholly inspired-of-God authoritative writings was discerned and established by the time of Christ, then discernment of what constitutes Scripture and thus a canon of it is indeed Scriptural.

 

[chilehed]

I used quotes from Scripture,

You continue to beg the question. How do you know that any of the books you quoted are Apostolic in origin?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

" We agree with Protestants that Scripture can train us in righteousness and equip us for good works, just as we believe in the material sufficiency of the Bible (the notion that all Christian doctrines are found in Scripture in some form or other). The Protestant mistake lies in equating that sufficiency with formal sufficiency: the Bible as the sole, ultimate, binding norm and authoritative rule of faith, to the exclusion of Church and Tradition.
(Source-- Apologist Dave Armstrong, Catholicanswers.com)

Regardless of what your RC apologist imagines, Catholicism is not settled on the material sufficiency of the Bible, while the sufficiency of Scripture does not mean it formally provides for all that is needed to understand what is necessary for faith and growth in grace - which would have to include formally providing the ability to reason and read and discern, but the sufficiency of Scripture can only mean that Scripture is alone in formally providing infallible Truth needed for salvation and growth in grace, while materially providing the ability and helps in that area.

Thus, the Westminster Confession - a historical document on SS, states things such as that the perpsecuity of Scripture is such that "the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."

"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."

"It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission.."

That does not sound like "just me and my Bible."

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You continue to beg the question. How do you know that any of the books you quoted are Apostolic in origin?

You continue to evidence insolence or blindness. How did believers know that books by men such as Moses and Isaiah were of Divine origin? Show me where an infallible magisterium was essential for correctly ascertaining what is of God and I will stop refuting your sophistry here.

 

[chilehed]

You continue to evidence insolence or blindness.

Rather, I continue to evidence an insistence on rational thought. Before you can talk about whether or not the works of Moses and the Apostles are of divine origin, you have to correctly know which works they are. So again, how do you know which books are really Apostolic? You seem very intent on ignoring that very reasonable question, and to cast absurd aspersions on my motives as a way to avoid it merely confirms the irrationality of your position.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Rather, I continue to evidence an insistence on rational thought. Before you can talk about whether or not the works of Moses and the Apostles are of divine origin, you have to correctly know which works they are. So again, how do you know which books are really Apostolic? You seem very intent on ignoring that question.

You need to present a rational argument. Knowing the source of a book itself does not necessarily mean every writing from them is wholly inspired of God, nor does lack of certainty of authorship necessarily mean it is not. Nor does passing on a judgment of who an author is mean they are the infallible authority on what is of God.

Knowing books are though to be from Moses or apostles comes is part of historical knowledge, in which everything from parents to magisterial offices are instrumental in passing this knowledge of attribution on. And rationally, before you can know which works are of Moses then you also need to have a brain and the ability to know anything, in which parents are instrumental.

Now if your argument is that being magisterial discerners and stewards of Divine revelation means that such are the infallible authorities on what it is, and thus whatever else they say is the word of God is to be submitted to. then say so. Otherwise, just what is your argument?

But if you argument is that dependence upon knowledge being past on is contrary to SS, and that SS must mean that Scripture formally provides everything we need in order to be saved and grow in grace, then that is a invalid concept of SS, as explained.

As concerns express Divine revelation, Scripture alone is the supreme, sure, substantive standard for faith and morals, and in its formal and material senses combined provides what is needed for to be saved and grow in grace, which includes everything from explicit as well as deduced teachings, and from reason to synods and councils, as shown.

But what RCs must defend is the alternative to SS, in which the RC magisterium is essential for knowing what the word of God consists of, and provides that word like men such as the apostles did.

 

[Tomm]

Interesting.

 

[BobRyan]

Rather, I continue to evidence an insistence on rational thought. Before you can talk about whether or not the works of Moses and the Apostles are of divine origin, you have to correctly know which works they are.

Which was never a problem for OT and NT saints.

Luke 24
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

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

1 Thess 2
13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

 

[BobRyan]

You've done no such thing. Your attempts to have all involved using quotes from the Bible, which begs the question.

What question? "Is the Bible God's Word?" -- Jesus said it is - see Mark 7:6-13.
No Catholics in the OT to say otherwise.
No Catholics in the NT to say otherwise.

That's not the question. The question, as I've repeatedly pointed out, is "how do we know what the Canon of Scripture is?"

Which was never a problem for OT and NT saints.

Luke 24
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

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

1 Thess 2
13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"?? We live "after their time" not "before it".

You are "inserting a problem" that did not exist.

Hint: no Bible was written in the 4th century A.D.

 

[BobRyan]

So you admit that you don't really have any Scriptural way of knowing what the Canon of Scripture is.

I admit your argument does not survive the details in Acts 17:11 and Luke 24:27 where we see them doing that which your argument claims should be "impossible". You claim that they can do no such thing until a council meets in the 4th century. It is there that we see them not only testing sola scriptura but using the phrase "in all the scriptures" which you claim they would never know about until the 4th century A.D.

Luke 24
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

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

1 Thess 2
13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

The text was already accepted in the first century as the details above demonstrate.

How do you know that either of those two books are actually Apostolic?

I can read.

And so also could the saints read in the NT age.

In fact there is no argument at all about the 27.

And it was the Hebrews - not the Catholics that came up with the OT books - which their own historian Josephus admits in the first century - had been canonized 300+ years before Christ.

 

[Tomm]

See the OP.


Irrelevant -- since the Bible was not written in the 4th century - and had been read since Moses started writing it in the OT.

Details matter.

Utter nonsense "27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures." Luke 24:27 -- no Catholics needed then either - to tell them what to read.

Anyway, now I think Sola Scriptura might have worked in history.

The first problem to be tackled - the availability of the Bible
A Protestant said "the Bible existed before the Church was born", I didn't know that, that's handy, so there'd be one problem less for Sola Scriptura. The whole Bible was there already when the Church was born (according to that Protestant) !! John's Gospel, Mark's Gospel, etc.

The next problem to be tackled - paper was not invented + printing was not invented
But that's not a real issue, they could have used bamboo, or sheep's skin, etc. and then do the copying by hand. How many pieces of bamboo or other material would be required to hold the whole Bible?? A large amount!! It would be a huge weight. Is that an issue?? Of course not! Each Bible would have weighed at most 60 kilograms, no more than that !! Relax, men at that time were strong enough to carry them. But what about old people and women?? No problem, the men could have carried for them. One less problem.

The next problem to be tackled - the copying
How long would it take to copy the Bible, ie to create one copy?? Wouldn't be too long, it would take at most one year, when copying non-stop, no more than that !! So it would be very expensive to buy a copy of the Bible. Let's assume everybody between AD33 and AD1450 was rich enough to buy a copy. One less problem.

The next problem to be tackled - literacy
That's wouldn't be an issue if all the faithful at that time were literate already. Let's assume everybody could read at that time. But how about the blind? Let's assume there were no blind people at that time. But how about the old? Let's assume everybody died before getting old.

So no more issues at all for Sola Scriptura, Sola Scriptura could be true, it could have worked between AD33 and AD1450. So why all the big fuss from Dr Scott Hahn, Dr Robert Tilley, Dr Peter Kreeft, Dr David Anders and Ulf Ekman*?

*A former Swedish mega church founder who converted to Catholicism

 

[BobRyan]

You've done no such thing. Your attempts to have all involved using quotes from the Bible, which begs the question.

What question? "Is the Bible God's Word?" -- Jesus said it is - see Mark 7:6-13.
No Catholics in the OT to say otherwise.
No Catholics in the NT to say otherwise.

That's not the question. The question, as I've repeatedly pointed out, is "how do we know what the Canon of Scripture is?"

Which was never a problem for OT and NT saints.

Luke 24
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

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

1 Thess 2
13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

no Bible was written in the 4th century A.D.

Anyway, now I think Sola Scriptura might have worked in history.

The first problem to be tackled - the availability of the Bible
A Protestant said "the Bible existed before the Church was born", I didn't know that, that's handy, so there'd be one problem less for Sola Scriptura. The whole Bible was there already when the Church was born (according to that Protestant) !! John's Gospel, Mark's Gospel, etc.

More "precisely" from "the details" above - they were not befuddled in Luke 24:27 to doubt Christ and the writer of the Gospel also not so befuddled as to not know what he was writing when he tells his readers --

Luke 24
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

In every case of the Bible examples given the arguments opposing the Acts 17:11 practice amounts to "That text should not exist... Luke and Christ could not have known that... the readers of that text would not know what scripture is..."...

Arguments that frankly - don't survive the text because they are "arguments with the text" arguing against its existence. As soon as we "notice" that the text DOES exist showing the saints of the NT doing the very thing the RCC says is not supposed to even have been possible... the RCC's argument fails to "survive the text".

The next problem to be tackled - paper was not invented + printing was not invented
But that's not a real issue, they could have used bamboo, or sheep's skin, etc. and then do the copying by hand.

And it is much harder to find the text that says "they would have accepted the Gospel but they could not find scripture... nobody had it".

And wayyy EASIER to find -

Luke 24
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

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

So no more issues at all for Sola Scriptura once the reader of the Bible stops arguing against the Bible statements "existing".