YOU have things inside out. It is hard to imagine a serious Christian who has a basic education, let alone anyone with an advanced degree, who cannot see and understand that prima facie the Word of God is different from any other literature in the world.
The Bible is, to paraphrase L.S. Chafer.....
"not a book that men could write if they would, or would write if they could".
This is an elegant way of saying that the power of scripture is easily seen with the naked eye – at least for any and all who have the Spirit of God and have a desire to know.
If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, then surely it is one. Then again, if it doesn't, it isn't. One can argue that the style of Hebrews is somewhat different from that of Paul's other writings, but can one really claim that Hebrews does not empower, inspire, humble the ego, and elevate the spirit in the same way that all other scripture does?
We can tell when a cut of meat looks well marbled, and, on the other hand, when a particular steak has gone bad – with a single sniff. Any amateur geologists can easily tell the difference between gold and pyrite. Any apprentice diamond merchant can easily discern whether the stone is real or merely paste. Why do we assume that in the case of the most important tangible thing in this world, the holy scriptures, that this will not also be the case?
There is nothing adduced in the “information” given that should cause any Christian who has read Hebrews and felt its power through the Holy Spirit to now think that it is not legitimately part of the canon.
Here is what Martin Luther said about the epistle to the Hebrews:
Hitherto we have had the right certain chief books of the New Testament. The four following had, in ancient times, a different reputation. In the first place, that this Epistle is not St. Paul’s, nor any other apostle’s is proved by the fact that it says, in Hebrews 2:3, that this doctrine has come to us and remains among us through those who themselves heard it from the Lord. Thus it is clear that he speaks of the apostles as a disciple to whom this doctrine has come from the apostles, perhaps long after them. For St. Paul, in Galatians 1:1, testifies mightily that he has his Gospel from no man, neither through men, but from God Himself.
Again, there is a hard knot in the fact that in chapters 6 and 10 it flatly denies and forbids to sinners repentance after baptism, and in Hebrews 12:17, it says that Esau sought repentance and did not find it. This seems, as it stands, to be against all the Gospels and St. Paul’s epistles; and although one might make a gloss on it, the words are so clear that I do not know whether that would be sufficient. My opinion is that it is an epistle of many pieces put together, and it does not deal with any one subject in an orderly way.
However that may be, it is a marvelously fine epistle. It discusses Christ’s priesthood masterfully and thoroughly, out of the Scriptures, and interprets the Old Testament finely and richly. Thus it is plain that it is the work of an able and learned man, who was a disciple of the apostles, learned much from them, and was greatly experienced in faith and practiced in the Scriptures. And although, as he himself testifies in Hebrews 6:1, he does not lay the foundation of faith, which is the work of an apostle, nevertheless he does build finely thereon gold, silver, precious stones, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:12. Therefore we should not be hindered, even though wood, straw or hay be mixed in with them, but accept this fine teaching with all honor; though to be sure, we cannot put it on the same level with the apostolic epistles.
Who wrote it is not known, and will not be known for a while; it makes no difference. We should be satisfied with the doctrine that he bases so constantly on the Scriptures, showing a right fine grasp upon the reading of the Scriptures and the proper way to deal with them. (Luther's Works, Volume 35, pp. 394-395)
As you can see, Martin Luther rejected Hebrews as the inspired word of God (as well as Jude, Revelation, and James, which he called an "epistle of straw".)
So why don't you tell me. Did Martin Luther, who invented Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and many of the other Protestant doctrines that you hold, not have the Spirit of God, or did he not have a desire to know? Why is it that the father of the Protestant Reformation got wrong something that is "so simple" to understand?
And why do you not recognize 7 books of Scripture that the vast majority of Christians throughout history have recognized? Is it because you do not have the Spirit of God, or is it because you do not have a desire to know?
Where in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John do we find verses that they claim that they are part of the New Test. canon????
From what I remember, none of these books makes an explicit claim to be part of the NT canon, but please correct me if I am wrong. I would be interested in seeing the chapters and the verses if I have missed them.
The Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church also holds Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to be the inspired word of God, of course.
That does not answer the question does it? Again......"what is an example of a doctrine from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about?"
I already answered this question, but I will answer it again in a way that should be more clear to you.
Doctrine: The books known as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1 -3 John, Jude, and Revelation, and only these books, comprise the inspired word of God known as the New Testament.
That is "doctrine from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about". The text of the Bible itself does not contain any such doctrinal statement, yet all Christians are required to believe this doctrine.
