Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Root of Jesse]

I'm sure more was added and then removed early on. Why didn't they have 74 or 72 books?

If I get to heaven, I'll ask.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Except that we already have noted that the Church did NOT do that. It made its own alterations.

You have, the Catholic Church, which is against you in this regard, hasn't. That's really all that matters.

 

[Wgw]

There is a need to iterate over some basic facts regarding the scriptural canon and the process by which it was adopted:

- The "additional" books one finds in "Catholic Bibles" are there because these books are in the Vulgate translation by St. Jerome, whose sanctity is universally recognized in the ancient churches (for example, by the Eastern Orthodox), who was also known for his opposition to Origen. They are in the Vulgate in turn, because they are in the Septuagint; Jerome decided to retranslate the OT from Hebrew and Aramaic where such versions existed, but adhered more or less to the Septuagint schme of versification and chapter delineation, which is why Psalm 95 vs. 5 in both the Vulgate and LXX reads "The gods of the gentiles are [demons/devils]", whereas the Masoretic text in Psalm 96:5 reads "The gods of the gentiles are idols."

- The Septuagint is the standard OT used in Eastern Christianity.

- The books lacking in most "Protestant Bibles" are missing because Martin Luther decided for his German Bible to translate from the Hebrew Masoretic text under the misguided assumption that this was more reliable than the Septuagint. The MT lacks a range of texts, and a number of Christological passages one finds in the Septuagint. That being said, Luther was also an anti-Semite whose grotesque rants, with sickening illustrations by Lucas Cranach the Elder, were detested even in the 16th century.

- Thr King James Version, or rather properly speaking the Authorized Version, contains the so-called Apocrypha and these books historically have been used in the Anglican lectionary scheme. However most printed KJVs one might find in the US, for example, are editions by Protestants who blindly follow the MT canon despite it being universally rejected by Christians for the first 1,500 years, and thus lack these books.

- The current NT canon was first arrived at by the fourth century champion of the divinity of our Lord in the face of Arians, St. Athanasius. The councils of Rome and Hippo are local councils which have never had ecumenical standing; these councils had the effect of affirming for their local churches the canon which had been standard in the Patriarchate of Alexandria since St. Athansius published his 39th Paschal Encyclical in a bid to ensure that Gnostic forgeries were not read as sacred scripture in the Egyptian church.

 

[tulipbee]

If

If I get to heaven, I'll ask.

If=in doubt

 

[Wgw]

If
If=in doubt

Humility is the beginning of theosis.

 

[tulipbee]

Humility is the beginning of theosis.

The good news is that God promises to save those He chose

 

[Wgw]

No one is disputing that but I think it rather presumptuous for one to reject any possibility that they are not on that list.

 

[tulipbee]

No one is disputing that but I think it rather presumptuous for one to reject any possibility that they are not on that list.

Possibilities comes from examples by believing inerrancy. If you believe God is the author of the bible then you'll believe in the good news. Regeneration precedes faith. If you have that faith, you have already been regenerated. Only the elects or chosen are already regenerated. God already made promises to his people, those that were already given to Jesus. Jesus died only for the given ones, not all. This is the whole point in sola scriptura, bible alone. Bible alone tells who have faith, not the RCC since they already have doubts in there own man made traditions that doesn't work and go agianst God

 

[Albion]

If
If=in doubt

Humility is the beginning of theosis.

No,

th th th is the beginning of theosis.

--St. Thththeodorix the Stutterer​

 

[Wgw]

I thought that quote belonged to Thththththeophan the Non-recluse.

 

[Albion]

I thought that quote belonged to Thththththeophan the Non-recluse.

I always confuse those two.

 

[BobRyan]

There is a need to iterate over some basic facts regarding the scriptural canon and the process by which it was adopted:

- The "additional" books one finds in "Catholic Bibles" are there because these books are in the Vulgate translation by St. Jerome, whose sanctity is universally recognized in the ancient churches (for example, by the Eastern Orthodox), who was also known for his opposition to Origen. They are in the Vulgate in turn, because they are in the Septuagint; Jerome decided to retranslate the OT from Hebrew and Aramaic where such versions existed, but adhered more or less to the Septuagint schme of versification and chapter delineation, which is why Psalm 95 vs. 5 in both the Vulgate and LXX reads "The gods of the gentiles are [demons/devils]", whereas the Masoretic text in Psalm 96:5 reads "The gods of the gentiles are idols."

- The Septuagint is the standard OT used in Eastern Christianity.

- The books lacking in most "Protestant Bibles" are missing because Martin Luther decided for his German Bible to translate from the Hebrew Masoretic text under the misguided assumption that this was more reliable than the Septuagint. The MT lacks a range of texts, and a number of Christological passages one finds in the Septuagint.

1. The Jews had the content of our 39 books long before the Septuagint.
2. Jerome did not include the 10 extra books without a lot of arm twisting - and even when he added them - he declared them to be "apocrypha" and not canon.
3. the early King James - English translation - comes after Luther and did include the Apocrypha - but not as canon.

3. The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2) and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this inspired revelation. Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God.2

4. The Dead Sea scrolls provide no commentary on the Apocrypha but do provide commentary on some of the Jewish Old Testament books. This probably indicates that the Jewish Essene community did not regard them as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books.

5. Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books. 3 In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written.


6. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4

7. Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

8. The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.


9. The Apocryphal books do not share many of the chararacteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).

10. And it is not clear at all how the Apocrypha discussion applies to the sola scriptura test of all doctrine and tradition discussion - unless there is a Catholic statement that certain RC doctrines and traditions are refuted by the Bible - but would be sustained if the apocrypha were added.

 

[BobRyan]

You have, the Catholic Church, which is against you in this regard, hasn't. That's really all that matters.

Latter Day saints also claim to be against us on this matter. Just "being against" sola scriptura - does not prove that such a position is correct as I am sure you will agree in the case of the LDS church.

 

[BobRyan]

Jerome –

Jerome is an authority for this division, he (Luther) cited St. Jerome, who in the early 5th century distinguished the Hebrew and Greek Old Testaments,[4] stating that books not found in the Hebrew were not received as canonical. Although his statement was controversial in his day,[5] Jerome was later titled a Doctor of the Church and his authority was also cited in the Anglican statement in 1571 of the Thirty-Nine Articles.[6]

Jerome completed his version of the Bible, the Latin Vulgate, in 405. In the Middle Ages the Vulgate became the de facto standard version of the Bible in the West. These Bibles were divided into Old and New Testaments only; there was no separate Apocrypha section. Nevertheless, the Vulgate manuscripts included prologues[11] that clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal or non-canonical. In the prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, which is often called the Prologus Galeatus, Jerome described those books not translated from the Hebrew as apocrypha; he specifically mentions that Wisdom, the book of Jesus son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd "are not in the canon". In the prologue to Esdras he mentions 3 and 4 Esdras as being apocrypha. In his prologue to the books of Solomon, he mentioned "the book of Jesus son of Sirach and another pseudepigraphos, which is titled the Wisdom of Solomon". He says of them and Judith, Tobias, and the Books of the Maccabees, that the Church "has not received them among the canonical scriptures".

He mentions the book of Baruch in his prologue to the Jeremias and does not explicitly refer to it as apocryphal, but he does mention that "it is neither read nor held among the Hebrews". In his prologue to the Judith he mentions that "among the Hebrews, the authority [of Judith] came into contention", but that it was "counted in the number of Sacred Scriptures" by the First Council of Nicaea.

--- my comment

Jerome stated clearly that the apocryphal books were not scripture - but was forced to include them (as one Catholic CF poster - MoreCoffee notes.) "The truth is that saint Jerome was left in no doubt that the Church (which commissioned his translation) wanted the whole of the old covenant scriptures including Tobit, Judith, Greek Esther, Greek Daniel, Baruch, first and second Maccabees, Wisdom, and Sirach and that is why the Vulgate of saint Jerome contained them. He included them because the bishop of Rome, saint Damasus I, required him to do so."


the Vulgate manuscripts included prologues[11] that clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal or non-canonical.

But Damasus ignorant of Hebrew simply did not know the material - the subject matter upon which he spoke. And he did not issue his statement ex cathedra saying "by all the fullness of apostolic power" the way that Pope Clement XIV did in the 18th century when extinguishing the Jesuit order "forever".

Thus Damasus' forcing Jerome did not stop him from including the clarifying fact in the prologue. And Damasus' decree is not "ex cathedra" so it is lumped in with the rather large pile of statements from from Popes over many centuries that are not ex cathedra - and flawed.

Jerome certainly knows that the tiny group forcing him to include the apocyrpha are not scholars, are ill-informed, but he does not consider them to represent the entire church as noted in his own statements.

--- end of my comment
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html

When commenting on the Apocryphal books, it (The Glossa ordinaria (pl. glossae ordinariae),) prefixes an introduction to them saying: 'Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc. These prologues to the Old Testament and Apocryphal books repeated the words of Jerome.

 

[BobRyan]

Jerome complains about the arm twisting in his prologues to each book that should not be included.

Example:


BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO TOBIAS

1Jerome to the Bishops in the Lord Cromatius and Heliodorus, health!

I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in the 3Chaldean language into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. 6For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops. I have persisted as I have been able, and because the language of the Chaldeans 9is close to Hebrew speech, finding a speaker very skilled in both languages, I took to the work of one day, and whatever he expressed to me in Hebrew words, this, with a summoned scribe, I have set forth in Latin words.

12I will be paid the price of this work by your prayers, when, by your grace, I will have learned what you request to have been completed by me was worthy.

END OF THE PROLOGUE

~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO JUDITH

1Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found1 among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. Yet having been written in Chaldean words, 3it is counted among the histories. But because this book is found by the Nicene Council2 to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand, and works having been set aside from which I was forcibly 6curtailed, I have given to this (book) one short night’s work3 translating more sense from sense than word from word. I have removed the extremely faulty variety of the many books; only those which I was able to find in the Chaldean words with understanding intact did I express in Latin ones.

9Receive the widow Judith, an example of chastity, and declare triumphal honor with perpetual praises for her. For this one has the Rewarder of her chastity given as imitable not only for women but also for men, Who granted her such strength, that she conquered 12the one unconquered by all men, she surpassed the insurpassable.

END OF THE PROLOGUE

 

[Root of Jesse]

Latter Day saints also claim to be against us on this matter. Just "being against" sola scriptura - does not prove that such a position is correct as I am sure you will agree in the case of the LDS church.

I didn't say that it proved it correct. But I've shown, many, many times, where our faith comes from. The Church Christ instituted was not a church of the Book. It was the Church of the Word. The Book proceeded from the Church, not the other way around.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Jerome complains about the arm twisting in his prologues to each book that should not be included.

Example:


BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO TOBIAS

1Jerome to the Bishops in the Lord Cromatius and Heliodorus, health!

I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in the 3Chaldean language into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. 6For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops. I have persisted as I have been able, and because the language of the Chaldeans 9is close to Hebrew speech, finding a speaker very skilled in both languages, I took to the work of one day, and whatever he expressed to me in Hebrew words, this, with a summoned scribe, I have set forth in Latin words.

12I will be paid the price of this work by your prayers, when, by your grace, I will have learned what you request to have been completed by me was worthy.

END OF THE PROLOGUE

~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO JUDITH

1Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found1 among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. Yet having been written in Chaldean words, 3it is counted among the histories. But because this book is found by the Nicene Council2 to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand, and works having been set aside from which I was forcibly 6curtailed, I have given to this (book) one short night’s work3 translating more sense from sense than word from word. I have removed the extremely faulty variety of the many books; only those which I was able to find in the Chaldean words with understanding intact did I express in Latin ones.

9Receive the widow Judith, an example of chastity, and declare triumphal honor with perpetual praises for her. For this one has the Rewarder of her chastity given as imitable not only for women but also for men, Who granted her such strength, that she conquered 12the one unconquered by all men, she surpassed the insurpassable.

END OF THE PROLOGUE

In both these examples, Jerome cedes his own opinion to that of the Church Councils, and of the bishops, whom Jerome served-a perfect example of obedience to a higher authority than ones self.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Jerome –

Jerome is an authority for this division, he (Luther) cited St. Jerome, who in the early 5th century distinguished the Hebrew and Greek Old Testaments,[4] stating that books not found in the Hebrew were not received as canonical. Although his statement was controversial in his day,[5] Jerome was later titled a Doctor of the Church and his authority was also cited in the Anglican statement in 1571 of the Thirty-Nine Articles.[6]

Jerome completed his version of the Bible, the Latin Vulgate, in 405. In the Middle Ages the Vulgate became the de facto standard version of the Bible in the West. These Bibles were divided into Old and New Testaments only; there was no separate Apocrypha section. Nevertheless, the Vulgate manuscripts included prologues[11] that clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal or non-canonical. In the prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, which is often called the Prologus Galeatus, Jerome described those books not translated from the Hebrew as apocrypha; he specifically mentions that Wisdom, the book of Jesus son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd "are not in the canon". In the prologue to Esdras he mentions 3 and 4 Esdras as being apocrypha. In his prologue to the books of Solomon, he mentioned "the book of Jesus son of Sirach and another pseudepigraphos, which is titled the Wisdom of Solomon". He says of them and Judith, Tobias, and the Books of the Maccabees, that the Church "has not received them among the canonical scriptures".

He mentions the book of Baruch in his prologue to the Jeremias and does not explicitly refer to it as apocryphal, but he does mention that "it is neither read nor held among the Hebrews". In his prologue to the Judith he mentions that "among the Hebrews, the authority [of Judith] came into contention", but that it was "counted in the number of Sacred Scriptures" by the First Council of Nicaea.

--- my comment

Jerome stated clearly that the apocryphal books were not scripture - but was forced to include them (as one Catholic CF poster - MoreCoffee notes.) "The truth is that saint Jerome was left in no doubt that the Church (which commissioned his translation) wanted the whole of the old covenant scriptures including Tobit, Judith, Greek Esther, Greek Daniel, Baruch, first and second Maccabees, Wisdom, and Sirach and that is why the Vulgate of saint Jerome contained them. He included them because the bishop of Rome, saint Damasus I, required him to do so."


the Vulgate manuscripts included prologues[11] that clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal or non-canonical.

But Damasus ignorant of Hebrew simply did not know the material - the subject matter upon which he spoke. And he did not issue his statement ex cathedra saying "by all the fullness of apostolic power" the way that Pope Clement XIV did in the 18th century when extinguishing the Jesuit order "forever".

Thus Damasus' forcing Jerome did not stop him from including the clarifying fact in the prologue. And Damasus' decree is not "ex cathedra" so it is lumped in with the rather large pile of statements from from Popes over many centuries that are not ex cathedra - and flawed.

Jerome certainly knows that the tiny group forcing him to include the apocyrpha are not scholars, are ill-informed, but he does not consider them to represent the entire church as noted in his own statements.

--- end of my comment
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html

When commenting on the Apocryphal books, it (The Glossa ordinaria (pl. glossae ordinariae),) prefixes an introduction to them saying: 'Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc. These prologues to the Old Testament and Apocryphal books repeated the words of Jerome.

As MoreCoffee said. Jerome recognized that a higher authority was requiring him to do the translation, and he did as he was bid.

 

[Root of Jesse]

1. The Jews had the content of our 39 books long before the Septuagint.

Regardless of what the Jews did or didn't do, what is the relevance?

2. Jerome did not include the 10 extra books without a lot of arm twisting - and even when he added them - he declared them to be "apocrypha" and not canon.

Jerome was not authoritative. He was a translator doing what the Church requested of him with obedience.

3. the early King James - English translation - comes after Luther and did include the Apocrypha - but not as canon.

What's your point?

3. The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2) and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this inspired revelation. Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God.2

There was no Jewish Canon prior to there being a Catholic Canon.

4. The Dead Sea scrolls provide no commentary on the Apocrypha but do provide commentary on some of the Jewish Old Testament books. This probably indicates that the Jewish Essene community did not regard them as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books.

Again, why do we consider the Essene community as authoritative to a Christian Bible???

5. Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books. 3 In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written.

Again, Jewish authority? That would be like being an American, and submitting to Russian law.

6. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4

The Catholic Canon was listed at the councils of Hippo, Rome, and Carthage. There was no need to set them in stone until the Protestant revolt. This is the way all Catholic doctrine is done.

7. Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

Many church Fathers accepted the Deuterocanon as Scripture, too. And regardless if some disagreed, they all obeyed. That's a concept folks like Luther and Calvin didn't understand, a fault which continues today.

8. The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.

Proof of this statement?

9. The Apocryphal books do not share many of the chararacteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).

One characteristic they all share is that they are read in liturgy. That was one of the criteria for being considered Canonical.

10. And it is not clear at all how the Apocrypha discussion applies to the sola scriptura test of all doctrine and tradition discussion - unless there is a Catholic statement that certain RC doctrines and traditions are refuted by the Bible - but would be sustained if the apocrypha were added.

Well, several Catholic doctrines are provable by items in the Deuterocanon. Praying for the dead, and purgatory, for a couple. Also the feast of Hannukah, a feast celebrated in Jesus' time, was documented in the Deuterocanon. FWIW, purgatory is also provable from NT sources.

 

[Root of Jesse]

If
If=in doubt

Of course it's in doubt. So's your salvation. Stumbling and falling (and not getting up again) would prevent our entrance to heaven, brother. I know you think you're saved and that's it. I'm still working out my salvation, and will until the end of my life. Life is a journey, heaven is the reward for successful perseverance.