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

[redleghunter]

Whether Sola Scriptura means "the Bible is the only authority" or "the Bible is the only infallible authority", the followings should be enough to refute it:

Please consider:

• 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.
• Not for over 1000 years after these early Councils was the printing press invented (~1450), so Bible manuscripts were quite rare and costly before the printing press came about.
  Between AD 33 and 1450 then, how did most people learn about the contents of Scripture, and who was the authoritative figure for the early Church during these centuries?

(One Protestant defined Sola Scriptura as the position that "Scripture alone is your sole authority for your faith and life". Another Protestant defined it as "The Bible is the only infallible authority" after people are refuting it. This is like keep moving the goal post in a soccer game so that your opponent won't be able to score a goal.)

Are you truly taking a position that asserts Holy Scriptures were not available to churches after the apostles all went home to the Lord?

 

[redleghunter]

You seem to be going to a lot of trouble to avoid a simple question: how do you know that the Book of Psalms is really supposed to be in the Canon? Where in the Bible does it say that?

Luke 24: NASB

27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

44Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. 49And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

 

[redleghunter]

How do you know that 2 Timothy is really supposed to be part of the Canon?

1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God according to the promise of the life that is in Christ Jesus,

2To Timothy, my beloved child:

Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[redleghunter]

How do you know that 2 Corinthians is really supposed to be part of the Canon?

1Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes,

2To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

3Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[redleghunter]

What Christ hammered was the false traditions of his days, not Church traditions.
All your statements make me wonder whether you have been reading and thinking carefully or not. I haven't come across worse arguments.

What did Jesus use to prove such traditions were false?

 

[redleghunter]

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

Too bad for Scott...My 5th grade Sunday school class could have answered that question. No wonder he flew the coop for somewhere he could feel secure someone else giving him answers.

 

[NBB]

Yeah, what they believe doesn't make any sense. Here is a graphic I created yesterday that helps to illustrate how God actually communicated with man through out history.

Woah, you don't believe God can say anything at all to people today? One less reason for me to believe in sola scriptura.

 

[BobRyan]

How do you know that 2 Corinthians is really supposed to be part of the Canon? Where in the Bible does it say that?

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.

Obviously nobody in the first century was saying "we won't read scripture until the 4th century A.D."...

How is this concept so difficult for some folks???

Obviously nobody in the first century was saying "we won't read scripture until the 4th century A.D."...

How is this concept so difficult for some folks???

Your argument is "with the text" in that you argue "it should not exist" as accepted text for first century saints - but should have magically "appeared" in the 4th century. How odd.

hint: note the details in scripture existing at the time you claim it could not exist and be accepted.

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.

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

I admit you have no explanation for the existence of that first century text of scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

Of course there is clearly a Scriptural way, as I have shown repeatedly. For it is certainly
incontrovertibly Scriptural that a body of wholly inspired-of-God authoritative writings was discerned and established

Hence the many texts of scripture that those at war against the Acts 17:11 practice of "sola scriptura" testing -- fail to explain or accept.

Luke 24:27 for example
Luke 24:27 " And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."

which explains Acts 17:11
where even nonChristians can apply "the test" as we see in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO"

Instead of waiting for the 4th century - here is what they were doing in the NT

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.

Obviously nobody in the first century was saying "we won't read scripture until the 4th century A.D."...

How is this concept so difficult for some folks???

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Woah, you don't believe God can say anything at all to people today? One less reason for me to believe in sola scriptura.

God says a lot within His Word that pertains to our life and in living godly. What else more do you need? While God can answer prayer (if it is His sovereign will), God does not give us new words of revelation in the church age because we have the perfect needed revelation for us today (i.e. the Bible).

Most who try to add to the Bible usually contradict Scripture in some way. In fact, this is what breeds biblical cults, etc.

 

[NBB]

God says a lot within His Word that pertains to our life and in living godly. What else more do you need? While God can answer prayer (if it is His sovereign will), God does not give us new words of revelation in the church age because we have the perfect needed revelation for us today (i.e. the Bible).

Most who try to add to the Bible usually contradict Scripture in some way. In fact, this is what breeds biblical cults, etc.

I don't know about new doctrine, but can God talk about personal matters for example with people in your view? Because saying 'God only talks with written scripture' sound like he can't talk of anything.

 

[redleghunter]

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"

He is actually and factually correct. See Luke 24:44-50

Which evokes a follow up question. If said Law, Prophets and Writings (Psalms) were not established as wholly inspired of God and authoritative, then why did Jesus Christ the Divine Logos and His apostles quote from, teach from, rebuke and correct from and appeal to them?

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

The Law, Prophets and Writings were established long before this in Temple Judaism. Jesus and His apostles demonstrate this.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Too bad for Scott...My 5th grade Sunday school class could have answered that question. No wonder he flew the coop for somewhere he could feel secure someone else giving him answers.

Even in the garden, God's word was attacked or doubt was placed upon it.

 

[redleghunter]

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

What are you expecting exactly? Or is your point we cannot know what is of God without a supreme Magicsterium?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't know about new doctrine, but can God talk about personal matters for example with people in your view? Because saying 'God only talks with written scripture' sound like he can't talk of anything.

Revelation 22:18-19 says that we are not to add any new words to the book of this prophecy. Already we have people who have lost their voices by trying to add to God's Word repeatedly through history.

See these articles here:
Bible Correctors lose Voice
Bible Corrector Loses Voice on Ankerberg Show

Revelation 22:18-19 cannot be referring to the plagues in the book of Revelation because we see no plagues being added to people from the book of Revelation, BUT we do see plagues being placed upon men who added to God's Word from the plagues mentioned in other parts of the Bible. This means Revelation 22:18-19 was meant to be in the book known as the Bible. Revelation was never meant to be a separate book forever. In fact, it never really was. Revelation is the last book added to all the other books or pieces of inspired Scripture. Revelation is connected to all the other previous books in the Bible. There are many cross references in Revelation that ties it to the rest of the Bible. If you eliminate Revelation from the Bible, it would no longer be a complete Bible anymore.

 

[redleghunter]

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

Luke and Acts? You picked the two 'worst' examples as both have an introduction of Luke telling Theophilus he had direct contact with apostolic witnesses (Paul and others) and in Acts was actually mentioned in the narrative.

Now why did this NT church and shortly after believe the NT books were canon? Because some of them lived through that time period and knew the authors. They also witnessed the miracles and open air preaching of the Gospel. They knew the writings because they knew who wrote them. Then copied them over and over and shared them. Most of the works have the apostles bearing a greeting with their names. It's not like these books and epistles were written hundreds and thousands of years and then someone picks them up in a pile and says "let's figure out if this is from God." They knew they were inspired writings because even the earliest elders and bishops quote directly or allude to the NT books. By the time of Irenaeus, who quotes 25 of 27 NT books along with many OT books, you see the NT 'canon' already being shared in writings.

The above is a confirmation of what already was known. The very writings themselves attested to Divine origin as they contained the words, deeds and Power of Christ and the teachings of His apostles.

 

[chilehed]

Nonsense

Then prove, using Scripture alone, that the Epistle of James was written by one of the Apostles.

Luke and Acts? You picked the two 'worst' examples as both have an introduction of Luke telling Theophilus he had direct contact with apostolic witnesses (Paul and others) and in Acts was actually mentioned in the narrative.

So you believe that Luke is Apostolic merely because it says so in Luke? And you have the same reason for believing Acts? That begs the question.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

I think you really need to address his response which was a rebuttal of your assertion. Here it is:

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.

 

[redleghunter]

Then prove, using Scripture alone, that the Epistle of James was written by one of the Apostles.

1James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings.

 

[gordonhooker]

It's not oral tradition if someone is actually reading from a written document.

Yes but Jesus' teachings were initially passed on via the oral tradition and were later written down