Formal Debate: Does the Bible... mark kennedy/Athanasias

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Does the bible alone give us the revelation of what makes up the New Testament Canon? Theology:
Scope: These forum guidelines apply to all Theology Forums.

1: Scope of Discussions: These forums are for the discussion of Christian Theology, Ethics, and History. For the purposes of the Theology forums, discussion is limited to Christian faith and practice as framed in the Nicene Creed. This includes the study of what Christian churches teach and confess, what Christians believe, and what the Bible teaches.

Discussion of non-Nicene beliefs is limited only to discussion from a Nicene point of view for purposes of evangelism.

2: Provide Citations: When quoting material from another site, you must provide a link to your source material for authentication. If quoting from a hard copy then proper citations must also be used. At a minimum the title of the book, magazine, article etc and the name of the author must be posted.

3: Focus on Topics: Discussions should be about doctrines and history, not about other members or their personal faith. Posters who include egregious personal insults and accusations in their posts have their posts edited by moderator staff, and may be issued notices and/or forum specific bans due to them, depending on the seriousness of the flame.

4: Provide Supporting Statements: Posters in Theology are expected to treat one another with courtesy and respect at all times, ESPECIALLY if you disagree with each other. When you disagree with someone's position, you should post evidence and supporting statements for your position. This policy, sometimes referred to as "X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial.

5. Respect Differing Points of Reference: It is expected that people who post in Theology will respect people of faith, including those for whom faith and logic are not contradictions, but complements to one another. To some Christians, arguments from the Bible, from doctrine, and from tradition, are just as valid (and at times more valid) than arguments from logic, reason, science, or history. Whether you are arguing from faith or from logic or some combination thereof, you should respect the other person's point of reference.

6. Accusations of non-Christian doctrine: Stating that another member's church is not Christian is not allowed. However, stating a teaching or belief of another church is not Christian because of X, Y, and Z, is allowed.

7: "Tread Carefully" Topics: Theology posters are expected to understand that accusations of heresy, false doctrine, idolatry, anti-Christ, cult, non-Christian beliefs, antisemitism, etc., are very emotionally laden. They are not conducive to clear discussion. While they are not forbidden in the context of a discussion (with evidence, examples, and/or support), they are discouraged by themselves, as terms of insult. This rule may be referred to as the "tread carefully" rule.

8: Discussion of Historical Figures: Discussion of historical figures important to Christians of many theological backgrounds is a necessary component of theological discourse. Such figures include [but are not limited to]: the Pope, the Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, various Church Fathers (e.g., St. Augustine), Martin Luther, John Calvin, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, etc. Such figures are not immune from criticism. However, insults and accusations against these people are not to be posted lightly, and may only be used when accompanied by citation of sources and in the "If X, then Y, because of Z" format. Statements unaccompanied by these requirements will be deemed inflammatory and dealt with appropriately.

9: Report OR Refute, Not Both: When confronted with a post which a member believes to be a violation of the rules, there are two basic options. The member can respond to the post and try to persuade the other member to correct and/or clarify the perceived slight, or they can report the post. Please refrain from both reporting a post, AND responding to it in the thread. Do one, or the other. If it is indeed a violation of the rules, chances are good that it will be edited or deleted, and any responses will either make no sense or will end up deleted in a thread cleanup. Please do not try to "eat your cake and have it, too."

10: Limit quote size: When copying and pasting quotations from other works, limit the size to 20% of the original article, or other work, while providing proper citation as noted above.

READ FIRST: Formal Debate Proposals Guidelines
Introduction

Welcome to the Theology area formal debate proposal section. This section is reserved for making proposals or topics which you would like to debate with other members. This forum is currently Theology specific so the overall topic should be concerned primarily with issues relevant to Christian theology. Like all other forums at CF, regular forum rules apply for this proposal folder as well as within the Formal Debate forum where the Debate will be hosted.

What Do I Do Here

In this proposal forum, you start a thread and explain the topic you wish to debate or discuss. We recommend placing within the thread title the overall topic you wish to discuss and within the thread specify what aspects of that topic are of interest to yourself.

Some recommendations would be to not make the proposal overly specific as your soon to be found debate partner may want to structure the debate in a slightly different way. It is generally better for the debate partners to come to some agreement on the guidelines of the debate together and starting out less specific allows more flexibility in finding a debate partner.

You may wish to PM certain members and ask if they are interested in your debate as well or perhaps start a thread in the appropriate theology forum to reference the debate proposal.

There will likely be some discussion within the proposal thread between the two parties as the topic for debate and parameters are finalized. What needs to be established before the proposal and topic is moved to a debate thread is the following:

1) The topic and title of the debate.

2) The members who will be participating in the debate and what positions they will take. Someone will usually affirm a position and someone else will oppose.

3) The number of rounds within the debate. If each party makes three alternating posts, that would equal a debate with three rounds.

4) Whether the posts will be made concurrently or alternating and which party goes first. Generally the affirmative position goes first but this is flexible.

6) Time limit between posts. You may select any length of time (within reason) as a maximum amount your opponent may take to formulate a response. If the time limit is 1 week, that means within one week of the affirmative making his/her post, the opposing position needs to reply. The post can be made earlier, of course.

7) The maximum length for each post. You can set a limit of say 1000 or even 5000 words for each post in a round. The length is the upper limit.

8) Whether or not quotes and outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% rule but within the scope the participants may decide to disallow quotes or limit them to a certain amount of the overall word total.

9) And, finally, the start date of the debate.

These parameters need to be agreed upon by both participants and approved by a moderator.

Once a debate is accepted by both parties, the proposal thread is closed and a debate thread is set up in the Formal Debate Forum. with a link to the proposal thread and a Peanut Gallery is created in the appropriate Theology sub-forum for non debate participants to comment upon the debate.

The Formal Debate

Please note that the Formal Debate forum is fully moderated which means that when a participant of the debate submits a post is invisible within the forum until approved by staff. Only the debate participants and the moderators may post in the formal debate threads.

If you are participating in a concurrent debate, your post will wait to be approved until the opponent has submitted their post. If not, it will simply need to be approved for compliance with forum rules and the debate parameters before moderator approval.

Extensions may be granted if a participant has missed a debate deadline and that will be upon discussion with a moderator and the other participant.

Participants in the debate are discouraged from posting in the Peanut Gallery thread until after the debate has concluded. Once the debate is finished, the discussion can then, of course, continue in the peanut gallery thread.

If there are any questions, feel free to PM any of the moderators responsible for this forum. This forum has been created to provide the avenue for more in depth discussions of certain topics between a limited number of people.

Please enjoy.

Stipulations:

Topic. Does the Bible alone give us the revelation of what makes up the New testament canon?

Length per post: A person can have as long as they want(Up to 5000 words) or as little as they want(one sentence or two) to show this per post.

What can be used. Scripture of course must be used 100% of the time for the protestant. Historical canons may only be used in passing as reference and not as a main demonstration on the protestants part because it would deny their own position and the debates meaning and title.

How long 3 rounds

How long to respond You may take up to one week to respond with each round.

When As soon as possible

mark kennedy (affirmative) will have the opening statement.

Athanasias (opposing) will have the closing statement.

The following CF rules apply and also the Congregational Site-Wide rules apply.

Please notify me via pm when the debate has been completed.

Please click here for link to the peanut gallery thread:

Peanut Gallery: Formal Debate-Does the Bible alone give us the revelation of...

__________________

 

[mark kennedy]

In this debate we will address whether the New Testament wittness is the full, clear and self referancial Canon (rule of faith) of Scripture. I am delighted to defend the Scriptures as the final word to man regarding God's revelation of the Gospel (Rom 1:16). Only the foundational truths of the prophets from Moses to John the Baptist (Heb 1:1; Deut 18:14-22), Christ and the Apostles (Eph 2:20; 1 Tim 1:10,11; John 1:5, 14) can be regarded as canonical. This is the full, clear and final word of God regarding matters of faith and doctrine.

I am limited to the New Testament wittness alone and quite frankly, I wouldn't have it any other way. Since an exaustive exposition of the New Testament is impossible my opening affimative argument will be from the Gospel according to Matthew. I intend to show clearly from the Apostolic authority to 'scribe' the New Testament rested with the Apostles. Opposed to the Gospel were the ecclesiastical cannons of secular rulers of the Apostlic Age (Matt 10:17; 15:1,2; 21:23) who taught the doctrines and commandments of men that nullified the commandments of God (Matt 15:6-9).

Having said that let me be clear that I do not oppose the ministry of the Roman Catholic Church as if it were unchristian. To the contrary, I accept the ministry of Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, Popes and Councils as Pasteral. However, I neither affirm nor accept the Cannoical law or rulings as equal to the New Testament wittness. I do not take these matter lightly but we are admonished by the Apostle Paul to judge nothing before the appointed time (1Cor 4:1-4)

The Scriptures are based on the authority of Christ, first and foremost. Christ was born the seed of Abraham (Gal 3:16) Son of David (Matt 22:41-46) according to the Scriptures. The advent of Christ marked the end of the prophetic period in redemptive history and the Gospel revealed the reality behind the Old Testament Levetical and Prophetic revelations. The Levetical/Prophetic age was from Moses to John (Jn 1:5,14; Heb 1:1; Deut 18:14-22; 2Tim 1:10,11; Eph 2:20; Deut 4:1,2). The three periods that marked new revelation were the periods were all about 70 years, Moses and Joshua (Levetical Age), Elijah and Elisha (Prophetic Age) and Christ and the Apostles (Apostolic Age). All authority to scribe the New Testament wittness was directly derived from Apostolic authority.

I am forced to make this uncustomarily brief since I have little time and no clear idea what my opponent considers equal in authority to the Scriptures. I will say this, extra-biblical revelations and canon laws have a dangerous tendancy not only to add to the Scriptures but to nullify them. People who should have loved Christ most became his enemies because of traditions of men the nullify God's Word (Matt 15). Christ warns to beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadduces (Matt 16) who taught the doctrines and commandments of men. That discipleship will cost you plenty, primarily because of the persecution of the ecclesiastical authorities of that day (Matt 17,18). The only clear referance to anything remotely resembling canon law in the New Testament is where Christ describes the 12 apostles sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel (Matt 19) and that's in the Millennium (thousand year reign of Christ). The Temple builders (chief priests) actually rejected the cheif cornerstone based on ecclestiastical authority (Matt 21). The righteous blood of God's servants was shed from the beggining by religious hypocrites who simply didn't like the favor God showed them or the message God had for them (Matt 23). Christ warns in no uncertain terms that we are to accept no substitutes for Christ though conterfiets will abound (Matt 24)

Bear in mind that the Sanhedrin was established by Moses and ended up being the ecclesiastical authority that sent him to the Romans for crucifiction. With these many strong and consistant dangers lurking in the wings we do well to guard against extra-biblical authority that seeks to be equal with the clear testimony of the Scriptures.

This post is no where near as smooth and polished as I would have liked but my primary proofs texts are contained in the Gospel according to Matthew. There are supporting texts elsewhere that I would have spent more time on but I really don't know where my opponent will be taking me with this. In addition I am very short on time and only given limited time online.

With that I will turn it over to my opponent who will respond as he sees fit. May all things be done unto edifying and to the glory of the Father and the power of the Holy Spirit in Christ's name we pray. Amen

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Athanasias]

I would Like to thank you Mark for being such a gentlemen and for having such a in depth look at this topic from your side. I appreciate you and your love for the scriptures and the Trinity very much. I come to this debate not as a enemy but rather as a friend and brother in Christ who (like you do for me) has the desire to have you see a bigger picture in theology and if God wills it to embrace a much fuller truth(in fact the fullness of truth) about Gods revelation's to man and authority. So lets learn from each other and pray that Gods will be glorified and his will be done. If I seem a little harsh please forgive me. I debate very hard sometimes and on paper this may give my opponent the wrong idea. If I say anything that is out of line please let me know.

The topic of the debate is " Does the "bible alone" give us the revelation of what makes up the New Testament Canon?"

It is a debate that really surrounds the question of the protestant doctrine of Sola scriptura or scripture alone. Many non-Catholics argue that Catholics do not understand sola scripture but rather that we argue against a "solo scriptura" premise. I do not wish to do that. So before I begin this debate I will use the words of the devout Lutheran protestant evangelicals of the Wels official statements on scripture to show what it is I am debating. I use devout Lutheran statements because it was Luther historically that founded this man made doctrine of sola scriptura so I need to at least go by its denominations understanding. Mark if this is not the understanding you have as a protestant Christian please correct me.

According to Wels offical statment on scripture scripture is "We therefore confess Scripture to be the only, but all-sufficient foundation of our faith, the source of all our teachings, the norm of our conduct in life, and the infallible authority in all matters with which it deals."

Continuing on they also say "We reject the idea that tradition is a source of revelation. Cf. Mt 15:3-6; Col 2:8."

Sources found here on Wels website: Statement on Scripture | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)

and here: Statement on Scripture | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)



This debate is a very important debate. To the people who read this debate I am not here to win a debate and I do not think Mark is either. We both wish to share with each other important theological truths and we both wish to glorify God. So in this debate no one wins so to speak. But anyone who reads the arguments and studies both of our propositions and prays will be a winner because if nothing else the Catholic and the Non-Catholic Christian will have a better idea of why each other beleive in the doctrines we do.

So we have seen that sola scriptura or the rule of faith with protestants means that scripture is the only and all sufficient source for truth. Its the source of all of thier teachings that must be believed and the infallible authority alone in all matters ! Anything else is like tradition is rejected and doesn't contain the revelation or word of God that they must be held bound too.

I beleive that Mark you would agree with this statement wouldn't you? It seems you would by reading your opening post my brother. In it you state a few things and seem to suggest that oral aposotlic traditions are not to be trusted or contain any of Gods revelation to help man. The bible alone must be then as the protestants teach to be the only yet all sufficient source in matters of all teaching and revelation.

You have made mention like the Lutheransn did that Tradition is not to be trusted or seen as a example that contains Gods word and you even quoted Matthew to demonstrate this just as our Wels brothers do.

Now there are a few things you brough up in the debate that you may have innocently misunderstood about Canon law and tradition. Since this is not a debate about either of those I will only answer them this one time only and in a short way.

I am afraid that protestants engage in a bit of eisegesis or isolateing one text to the extant of the other. They do not look to the full picture in scripture when it comes to the word of God or revelation. Mark you and others have shown that certain passages reveal tradtion to nullify Gods word and that is correct. But bible itself demonstrates that there are good and bad traditions. If the traditions contradict God then they are man made and bad and that is what Jesus condemned. But Jesus never condemned all oral traditions just the man made ones. There are traditions that would be apostolic or from Jesus the apostles that would not be written down and these tradtions are to be beleived and held to by all Christians as they contain the word of God and revelation in both oral form. For example in 1 Cor 11:1-2 St. Paul commends the Corthinthains for maintaing the traditions he passed on to them. In 2 Thess 2:15 Paul commands the Christians to Stand firm and hold fast to all traditions that the apostles taught whether in written form(Scripture or epistle) or in oral form by word of mouth. The bible nowhere mentionms that all traditions that contain Gods revelation are to written in Scriptiure form as a matter of fact it says the opposite and Christians were bound to hold fast to both. Also there is no verse in the bible that says that all the traditions got written down and or that all oral traditions once the bible was formed would be null and void. I am afraid that that is something the protestant tradition adds to the text itself the textual evidence goes the opposite way. The early Chruch and Christians all attested tot he two source revelation of scriptiure and tradition. None of the early christians ever taught sola scriptura. Irneaeus, Athanasias, Augustine etc all taught the opposite that the protestant do.Now canon law in the Catholic understanding is Church law that pertains to Catholics only. There are different laws but none of them deal with the topic tonight. So I that is all I am going to say about those two things. We need to focus on the debate itself which is does the bible alone give us the revelation of what makes up the new testament canon. So its that position that is on trial here not tradition or canon law. I will do debates about both of those topics at later times but now we msut focus on Sola Scriptura and is it true?

I maintain as all Catholic and eastern Orthodox Christians teach that the bible alone or sola scriuptura doctrine is unbliblcial, unworkable, impracticle, and not historical.

We can easily test this by using the canon of the new testament itself, that is which books belong to the new testament. If scripture alone is all sufficient and can be the sole infallible authority on all matters of doctirne and faith and if there is no other venue in which Gods revelation is contained then the biblel alone must tell us what books make up the New testament canon! The bible alone must give us a list of offical books that make up what the bible even is so Christians can know its true? I cannot find one single book or books in the bible alone that give us this list of what belongs in the canon and what doesn't? And if there was a book that did list all the books we can only know that book is correct if we knew that book itself is inspired. We need a outside source for that.

I will argue that the Chrstian church by necessity needed another venue that contained Gods revelation other then the bible to show the Christians what made up thier bible. This source must be seen as authoritative and living. No book can authenticate itself. And there are many books that people read that claim inspiration but yet are not books like the Koran or book of mormon. So we need a living body and living teaching or tradtiion that goes all the way back to the apostles to help us with this. A living tradition that witnessed these truths from century to century and that contained Gods oral word or revelation are what is needed. A apostolic authoritiative church would be nessessary to give to the Christians what thier Holy Book would be.

If we cannot find this indspired table of contents in the bible alone then this clearly destroys the notion that the biblel alone is the sole all Sufficient authority that contains the fullness of Gods revealtion for Christians. So I need to see where the bible teaches what makes up the bible or the New Testament canon? If one cannot show that then sola scriptura is false. Becasue then you had to rely on a authority and revelation outside of scripture itself. Thus defeating sola scriptura.

This is my opening statements. I conclude with the question "where does the bible show us or give us the revleation of what makes up the New testament?"

Thank you and God bless you Mark!

 

[mark kennedy]

I would Like to thank you Mark for being such a gentlemen and for having such a in depth look at this topic from your side. I appreciate you and your love for the scriptures and the Trinity very much. I come to this debate not as a enemy but rather as a friend and brother in Christ who (like you do for me) has the desire to have you see a bigger picture in theology and if God wills it to embrace a much fuller truth(in fact the fullness of truth) about Gods revelation's to man and authority. So lets learn from each other and pray that Gods will be glorified and his will be done. If I seem a little harsh please forgive me. I debate very hard sometimes and on paper this may give my opponent the wrong idea. If I say anything that is out of line please let me know.

I'll be brief, we have never had any problems in the past and I don't expect we will in the future.

The topic of the debate is " Does the "bible alone" give us the revelation of what makes up the New Testament Canon?"

It is a debate that really surrounds the question of the protestant doctrine of Sola scriptura or scripture alone. Many non-Catholics argue that Catholics do not understand sola scripture but rather that we argue against a "solo scriptura" premise. I do not wish to do that. So before I begin this debate I will use the words of the devout Lutheran protestant evangelicals of the Wels official statements on scripture to show what it is I am debating. I use devout Lutheran statements because it was Luther historically that founded this man made doctrine of sola scriptura so I need to at least go by its denominations understanding. Mark if this is not the understanding you have as a protestant Christian please correct me.

According to Wels offical statment on scripture scripture is "We therefore confess Scripture to be the only, but all-sufficient foundation of our faith, the source of all our teachings, the norm of our conduct in life, and the infallible authority in all matters with which it deals."

Continuing on they also say "We reject the idea that tradition is a source of revelation. Cf. Mt 15:3-6; Col 2:8."

Sources found here on Wels website: Statement on Scripture | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)

and here: Statement on Scripture | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)

The source is perfectly reliable and soundly representative both of Sola Scriptura and my Christian convictions.

This debate is a very important debate. To the people who read this debate I am not here to win a debate and I do not think Mark is either. We both wish to share with each other important theological truths and we both wish to glorify God. So in this debate no one wins so to speak. But anyone who reads the arguments and studies both of our propositions and prays will be a winner because if nothing else the Catholic and the Non-Catholic Christian will have a better idea of why each other beleive in the doctrines we do.

Agreed

So we have seen that sola scriptura or the rule of faith with protestants means that scripture is the only and all sufficient source for truth. Its the source of all of thier teachings that must be believed and the infallible authority alone in all matters ! Anything else is like tradition is rejected and doesn't contain the revelation or word of God that they must be held bound too.

It is neither the source of all truth or all matters of authority. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is the primary source for all matters related to faith, doctrine and redemptive history. The authority of Scriptures is in no way subject to ecclesiastical authorities, Catholic or otherwise. It is the foundational truths of the Gospel and gives us all that is required for justification, sanctification and walking in a matter worthy of our faith. All extra-biblical revelation, Canon Law and ecclesiastical proclaimation are subordinante to the Scriptures.

I beleive that Mark you would agree with this statement wouldn't you? It seems you would by reading your opening post my brother. In it you state a few things and seem to suggest that oral aposotlic traditions are not to be trusted or contain any of Gods revelation to help man. The bible alone must be then as the protestants teach to be the only yet all sufficient source in matters of all teaching and revelation.

I would agree without reservation. The fact that other sound Christian teaching exists aside from the Scriptures in no way diminishes the completeness of the wittness of Scripture.

You have made mention like the Lutheransn did that Tradition is not to be trusted or seen as a example that contains Gods word and you even quoted Matthew to demonstrate this just as our Wels brothers do.

The Church rests on the foundation of Christ and the Apostles, there is no real question about that from the Gospel.

Now there are a few things you brough up in the debate that you may have innocently misunderstood about Canon law and tradition. Since this is not a debate about either of those I will only answer them this one time only and in a short way.

Sounds good to me.

I am afraid that protestants engage in a bit of eisegesis or isolateing one text to the extant of the other. They do not look to the full picture in scripture when it comes to the word of God or revelation. Mark you and others have shown that certain passages reveal tradtion to nullify Gods word and that is correct. But bible itself demonstrates that there are good and bad traditions. If the traditions contradict God then they are man made and bad and that is what Jesus condemned. But Jesus never condemned all oral traditions just the man made ones. There are traditions that would be apostolic or from Jesus the apostles that would not be written down and these tradtions are to be beleived and held to by all Christians as they contain the word of God and revelation in both oral form. For example in 1 Cor 11:1-2 St. Paul commends the Corthinthains for maintaing the traditions he passed on to them. In 2 Thess 2:15 Paul commands the Christians to Stand firm and hold fast to all traditions that the apostles taught whether in written form(Scripture or epistle) or in oral form by word of mouth.

First of all I am quite certain that the traditions those passage speak of are contained in the pages of Holy Scripture. After warning of the tendancy of scholars to take verses out of their context to make them mean something not originally intended is a pit fall we all do well to avoid.

The bible nowhere mentionms that all traditions that contain Gods revelation are to written in Scriptiure form as a matter of fact it says the opposite and Christians were bound to hold fast to both. Also there is no verse in the bible that says that all the traditions got written down and or that all oral traditions once the bible was formed would be null and void.[/quote]

The Scriptures are clear that the Apostles doctrine is sufficiently and completely preserved within the New Testament. The proof texts you are using are isolated texts that do not speak of extra-biblical traditions or even imply them. They certainly don't lay a foundation for extra-biblical authority or ascribe to any ecclesiastical authority the duty of supplamenting the New Testament.

I am afraid that that is something the protestant tradition adds to the text itself the textual evidence goes the opposite way. The early Chruch and Christians all attested tot he two source revelation of scriptiure and tradition. None of the early christians ever taught sola scriptura. Irneaeus, Athanasias, Augustine etc all taught the opposite that the protestant do.Now canon law in the Catholic understanding is Church law that pertains to Catholics only. There are different laws but none of them deal with the topic tonight. So I that is all I am going to say about those two things. We need to focus on the debate itself which is does the bible alone give us the revelation of what makes up the new testament canon. So its that position that is on trial here not tradition or canon law. I will do debates about both of those topics at later times but now we msut focus on Sola Scriptura and is it true?

I must strongly disagree with your first point, the Protestant tradition of Sola Scriptura protects against adding to the Scriptures. Further, the early Church Fathers spoke often and elogently on matters of doctrine and the Scriptures were accepted with unianimous consent. Sola Scriptura make the Bible the final and complete authority in matters of faith and doctrine and the reason for that is evident and obvious when one considers what some would add to them.

I maintain as all Catholic and eastern Orthodox Christians teach that the bible alone or sola scriuptura doctrine is unbliblcial, unworkable, impracticle, and not historical.

Which would explain why I'm a Protestant since I do not hold to Councils, Popes, Synods or other ecclesiastical authority as supplamanetal to the clear testimony of Scripture.

We can easily test this by using the canon of the new testament itself, that is which books belong to the new testament. If scripture alone is all sufficient and can be the sole infallible authority on all matters of doctirne and faith and if there is no other venue in which Gods revelation is contained then the biblel alone must tell us what books make up the New testament canon! The bible alone must give us a list of offical books that make up what the bible even is so Christians can know its true? I cannot find one single book or books in the bible alone that give us this list of what belongs in the canon and what doesn't? And if there was a book that did list all the books we can only know that book is correct if we knew that book itself is inspired. We need a outside source for that.

I was under the impression that the Canon of Scripture was not in question here. The fact remains is that the 'list' was accepted by unanimous consent and has been recognized in Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant traditions with question. The fact that some would add to the 'list' of books is evidence that attempts are often made to establish lesser writtings as equal to the Scriptures which is something I do not accept.

I will argue that the Chrstian church by necessity needed another venue that contained Gods revelation other then the bible to show the Christians what made up thier bible. This source must be seen as authoritative and living. No book can authenticate itself. And there are many books that people read that claim inspiration but yet are not books like the Koran or book of mormon. So we need a living body and living teaching or tradtiion that goes all the way back to the apostles to help us with this. A living tradition that witnessed these truths from century to century and that contained Gods oral word or revelation are what is needed. A apostolic authoritiative church would be nessessary to give to the Christians what thier Holy Book would be.

I would submit to you that the Scriptures were indeed confirmed by signs, works and mighty deeds. Certainly Paul's writtings have been confirmed since Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles and this is not in dispute. Either the writters were Apostles are close associates under their authority. With the completion of the Canon of Scripture the Canon has been and will remain closed.

I'm out of time and I hope you will forgive me for the brievity of the post. I would ask just one question, what would you add to the Scriptures to complete them?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Athanasias]

Greeting Mark and God bless you thank you for your wonderful replies. They got me to think and I am learning more about your position. I am enjoying this dialog with you my friend. If I sound too harsh in this dialog please let me know as I do not wish to offend you but sometimes I debate very hard. I though you had some good objections and interesting points. We agree on so much its refreshing. Its also refreshing to speak on what we do not agree on too. Thanks for your cooperation.

It is neither the source of all truth or all matters of authority. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is the primary source for all matters related to faith, doctrine and redemptive history. The authority of Scriptures is in no way subject to ecclesiastical authorities, Catholic or otherwise. It is the foundational truths of the Gospel and gives us all that is required for justification, sanctification and walking in a matter worthy of our faith. All extra-biblical revelation, Canon Law and ecclesiastical proclamation are subordinante to the Scriptures.

O.k. but that is not what you agreed to as the Lutherans say it’s the source of all authority “"We therefore confess Scripture to be the only, but all-sufficient foundation of our faith, the source of all our teachings, the norm of our conduct in life, and the infallible authority in all matters with which it deals."

So do you agree to this or not? You seem to say you would? If you are teaching the primacy of sacred scripture then I and Catholics agree with this as Catholic theologians like Dr. Scott Hahn speaks about Catholics believing in prima scriptura or the scripture has certain sense of primacy. But what scripture never teaches it is the only thing given or the only or sole authority or revelation for Christians and the early Christians in the Church confirm this. The only one that really disagree with this are the 15th century protestant reformers and they come in 15 centuries to late. It is wise to see that no early Christian ever used scripture alone or the arguments that modern day protestants do. But they did use oral apostolic tradition and the Church councils and Authority. This should give you something think about it!

I would agree without reservation. The fact that other sound Christian teaching exists aside from the Scriptures in no way diminishes the completeness of the witness of Scripture.

But if what your saying is true then how does sola scriptura give us the truth of what makes up new Testament canon? I can find no biblical book or author that list he complete canon for Christians. Seems like the Christians had to look elsewhere to get the revelation of what the Nt Canon even is! Can you find where the bible alone teaches this all important piece of revelation? Which book gives a list of books that belong to the New Testament? This is crucial to sola scripturaist do you see? If you cannot do this then can we really call scripture Gods complete revelation? Don’t we need another source that contains Gods revelation to give us what the Canon is? Don’t we need a authority to teach us these things?

The Church rests on the foundation of Christ and the Apostles, there is no real question about that from the Gospel.

I don’t deny that either, I just deny that the revelation that Christ and the apostles gave was soley written and not by writing and Oral tradition as the New Testament Canon proves this.

First of all I am quite certain that the traditions those passage speak of are contained in the pages of Holy Scripture. After warning of the tendancy of scholars to take verses out of their context to make them mean something not originally intended is a pit fall we all do well to avoid.

Well if you right about that then where in the context of that passage does it say that all of Paul's oral traditions got written down and we are now to only hold to the written traditions alone?? The verse doesn’t say that it says the opposite doesn’t it? As a matter of fact it says the opposite and Christians were bound to hold fast to both written and oral not written alone. There is no verse in the bible that says that all the traditions got written down and or that all oral traditions of the apostles once the bible was formed would be null and void. The early Christians made this crystal clear in their writings and they were the ones who were taught by the apostles and their successors and preached the gospel! How can we deny this Christian truth. St. John seems to teach the opposite of sola scriptura as he show there are oral traditions that he binds his community to that are not written down . Here John seems to be in line with Paul and out of sinc with modern protestants. How can that be??

“Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete”. (2 Jn 1:12)

“I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink;
I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face”. (3 Jn 1:13-14 )

The Scriptures are clear that the Apostles doctrine is sufficiently and completely preserved within the New Testament. The proof texts you are using are isolated texts that do not speak of extra-biblical traditions or even imply them. They certainly don't lay a foundation for extra-biblical authority or ascribe to any ecclesiastical authority the duty of supplementing the New Testament.

The church and Apostolic traditions are not a extra biblical at all, the scripture teaches these things very clearly. I am not talking about supplanting the New Testament I am saying that the Oral Traditions of the apostles are also part of the divine revelation with sacred scripture and sacred scripture itself admits. And as a matter of fact the Canon of the New Testament that you accept proves this because scripture alone could not give us the complete or sufficient revelation of what makes up the New Testament. You got that from revelation outside of the New testament,. I am surprised that you seem to reject Church authority or councils as without the Church which is the pillar and foundation for all truth( 1tim 3:15) we would not know what the canon is. God did not just drop the bible out of the sky and say here’s the canon of the NT. He used his Church as a authority who speaks with his voice(LK 10:16, Matt 18:16-19, Matt 18:15-20. Jn 16: 12-14). So the church is the servant of the word of God both written and oral it does not Lord over it. It the Job of the church to teach the word with authority God gave them(Matt 28:19-20) . This includes to teach what the written word even is ie… the canon. Councils with Authority have always been called to determine this kind of things (Acts 15). So Acts shows that the Church had a Authority to teach the truth as found in scripture and tradition. The Holy Spirit backed up this authority(Act 15:28) The Church had the authority to teach the NT Canon because Jesus gave them that authority and they were proclaiming to all Christians the oral apostolic tradition of the NT canon that the apostles left the Church and the Pope proclaimed in 382 at the council of Rome under Pope Damasus I.

I must strongly disagree with your first point, the Protestant tradition of Sola Scriptura protects against adding to the Scriptures. Further, the early Church Fathers spoke often and elogently on matters of doctrine and the Scriptures were accepted with unianimous consent. Sola Scriptura make the Bible the final and complete authority in matters of faith and doctrine and the reason for that is evident and obvious when one considers what some would add to them.

I would argue that the Church itself protects against adding anything to the bible that should not be. The bible itself could not protect itself as it is a inanimate object albeit Gods word. The truth that it alone could not protect against heresies is a historical fact and that is seen in the many heresies in the early Church. It took a living body with the authority of the successors of the apostles and a revelation outside of scripture to defend the heresies that scripture alone could not nor did provide historically. Again if the scripture is the final and complete authority on all matters of doctrine and faith then why can’t the bible alone give us what makes up the bible alone? The New Testament Canon is found nowhere in the bible alone! So if you claim this then you will need to show me and all of us what book teaches what books will belong to the Canon of scripture.

Which would explain why I'm a Protestant since I do not hold to Councils, Popes, Synods or other ecclesiastical authority as supplamanetal to the clear testimony of Scripture.

Ahh but how do you know what scripture always means? St. Peter says there are some things in Paul’s writings and scripture that are hard to understand and the untaught twist them to their own destruction( 2 peter 3:15-16). Heresies would pop up in the Church and the scripture alone could not settle the problem. That alone is enough to show that sola scriptura is false and impractical! If scripture alone can settle all issue and protect against false teachings then why hasn’t it yet?. Historically it was the Church who did those things. How has sola scriptura today protected against he false teachings of the bible when we have over 10,000 different protestant denominations alone that all practice and agree the bible alone is the all sufficient source for teaching and correction yet they all disagree with each other. Just ask any Bible alone Lutheran if baptismal regeneration and forgiveness of sins occurs in infant baptism and they will say it does.They use the bible alone as their only guide to doctrine! Now ask any Baptist who uses the bible alone and they will say no! Who is correct? Can the bible alone really be able to teach the pure truth ?? If it does how come its hasn’t already done so? Every man and women using scripture alone just becomes their own Pope that is all. Sola scriptura seems to be ego bound to me.

I was under the impression that the Canon of Scripture was not in question here. The fact remains is that the 'list' was accepted by unanimous consent and has been recognized in Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant traditions with question. The fact that some would add to the 'list' of books is evidence that attempts are often made to establish lesser writtings as equal to the Scriptures which is something I do not accept

.

I am sorry that you thought that. I asked you before we began the debate if you understood what we are debating and you emailed me yes! I do believe in the Canon of scripture of the NT. But I do not believe them because the bible alone told me so. Where does the bible alone teach what makes up the NT canon? Hey that’s what the debate is about! I believe The NT Canon because God used revelation outside of the NT and the apostolic Church and her authority decided what the canon would be and they used this Revelation contained in Apostolic oral tradition and historical witness to show this. There simply is no verse or verses in the bible alone that say what makes up the New Testament Canon. So Protestants have the burden of proof and the burden of accepting the NT canon based on their only source of revelation which is the bible alone. Something to think about!

I would ask just one question, what would you add to the Scriptures to complete them?

I would add nothing to the scriptures to complete them. But I would also not subtract the oral tradition of the apostles which contain the revelation of God also as the scripture themselves show us in 2 thess 2:15.

So I end asking the question of the debate! Where does the bible alone give us the revelation of what makes up the NT canon? If you cannot show me where there is a divine table of contents in the bible then doesn’t this disprove sola scriptura and your own practice of it???

It has been wonderful debating this with you Mark as I am having fun. God bless you my brother I look forward to hearing from you on your final post.
In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasais