Bible Christians: If you claim that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of authority, then how do you convert those who cannot read?

[sandusky]

God decided which books should be in the canon.

There is specific criteria for a book to be considered inspired Scripture. The criteria set forth is according to Scripture itself:

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.

The Catholic Church did not decide. The Catholic Church included them in her canon because they were already regarded as divinely inspired.

1. Prophetic Authorship
2. Must not contradict Scripture
3. Must be historically accurate
4. Must proclaim Christ Jesus
   (I worte this list off the top of my head so it is probably missing items and poorly worded. Let’s not nit pick about it)

The reason councils met to create a canon was because many suedo Christian writings were sufacing and the intent was to keep false prophecy from becoming part of the Bible.

BTW: the extra books included in the Catholic Bible do not meet all the criteria.

That’s right.

Catholics misapprehend that the writing and transmission of scripture, including the canon, was, first and foremost, by the inspiration of the HS.

 

[Bishopite]

It seems to me Protestants can’t make up their mind.

They demand an adherence to the written word, but some acknowledge that it was inspired before it was written.

This is true. As you and I know, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are constantly being accused by Protestants of posessing non-biblical doctrines, i.e., the sacraments. When we show them evidence of these within scripture, we are accused of wrongly interpreting the scriptures. When we ask them where they got their Bible, that is to say who were the Christian leaders (Bishops/Priets) who decided what books were inspired, they say that the early Christian didn’t need the Bible because they had Jesus.
I’m not sure Montalban, you know a great deal more about the early church fathers than I, but I’ve not found any evidence yet that shows the early Christians as just saying we have Jesus in order to know what the was the Bible. Again, I’ve not seen the evidence that shows these early Christians as having liturgical and doctinal practices consistant with Protestantism.
When we ask them to show us the evidence of the early church (“Christian” leaders–Bishops and priests) which support their Protestantism so faciley say the early church fathers are fallible, therefore unreliable!

Yet when we ask them to show us evidence from their Bible that it is inspired they can’t. You and I keep going back and forth without any questions being answered.

 

[Ginger2]

Q. Who were the earliest Christians?

A. The disciples who followed Jesus.

Q. How many disciples were there?

A. Thousands. Thousands of people were following Christ Jesus before he was crucified. They are the earliest Christians.

Q. Why do you keep asserting that they needed something written down while Jesus was teaching them - other than the OT which testifies to Jesus?

 

[Bishopite]

God decided which books should be in the canon.

You are stating the obvious. Of course God inspired the books, what Montalban and I want to know is HOW did God allow those inspired books to be *RECOGNIZED???

There is specific criteria for a book to be considered inspired Scripture. The criteria set forth is according to Scripture itself:

By using this type of logic, a Muslim, Mormon, or Hindu can say their books are inspired because their inspired books say so.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.

The Catholic Church did not decide. The Catholic Church included them in her canon because they were already regarded as divinely inspired.

This is again the cart before the horse or hindsite is 20/20. The early church did NOT have a complete canon, in fact many books considered to be inspired in one area were rejected in other areas of Christianity. There were essentially three catagories that the books were split, accepted books, rejected books and disputed books.
What is your answer to those disputed books?

1. Prophetic Authorship

Huh, so who wrote the book of Hebrews??

1. Must not contradict Scripture

Circular reasoning. The Bible is inspired because the Bible says so (even though the early church made the decision)

1. Must be historically accurate
2. Must proclaim Christ Jesus

So…even though the book of Ester doesn’t mention the word God, does it still count as proclaiming Jesus?
How about the book of Philemon, does it proclaim Jesus?

(I worte this list off the top of my head so it is probably missing items and poorly worded. Let’s not nit pick about it)

Oh boy.

The reason councils met to create a canon was because many suedo Christian writings were sufacing and the intent was to keep false prophecy from becoming part of the Bible.

Great, you accept the authority of councils made up of Bishops and Priests, you must if you accept there authoritative decision to meet and denounce psuedo Christian writings; they obviously were the orthodox Christians right?

BTW: the extra books included in the Catholic Bible do not meet all the criteria.

Where does the criteria come from?

 

[Bishopite]

Q. Who were the earliest Christians?
A. The disciples who followed Jesus.

Yes, and did these “disciples” just dissapear after the first century?

Q. How many disciples were there?

A. Thousands. Thousands of people were following Christ Jesus before he was crucified. They are the earliest Christians.

Right, but what you are totally missing is that these followers of Jesus, had leaders called Bishops and Priests and Deacons.

Q. Why do you keep asserting that they needed something written down while Jesus was teaching them - other than the OT which testifies to Jesus?

Never said that one.

 

[Bishopite]

That’s right.

Catholics misapprehend that the writing and transmission of scripture, including the canon, was, first and foremost, by the inspiration of the HS.

Of course we Catholics acknowledge the Holy Spirit as guiding those who wrote scripture. What you don’t see is that the Holy Spirit also guided the Catholic church in recognizing and deciding what books were inspired by the God.

Who did the Holy Spirit use in order to recognize the canon?

 

[Bishopite]

I don’t understand how you find the canon to be an oral tradition from the apostles; most Catholics maintain that the apostles had no idea they were writing scripture; of course, they are wrong, but what the apostles handed down was written tradition.

 

[sandusky]

Bishopite:

Yes, the Apostles didn’t know they were writing scripture, however, what they wrote is simply what they taught in the liturgy and general day-to-day example passed down (paradosis) Traditioned to the next disciples.

Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes:
“Unless a book could be shown to come from the pen of an apostle, or at least to have the authority of an apostle behind it, it was peremptorily rejected, however edifying or popular with the faithful it might be” <(Early Christian Doctrines,> 60).

That’s the point of what I said, and why I then asked you to list the oral traditions given by Paul to the Thessalonians.

I’m not interested in the tradition behind the canon, I’m well aware of it.

I would like to see your list of the oral traditions that Paul passed on to the Thessalonians.

And, I would like a clearer source for the FF Bruce quotes, and the Canon of Oral Traditions quote, please.

 

[Bishopite]

The OT canon was enumerated by the Jews (Rom 3:2); and the earliest enumeration of the NT’s 27 books was by the African Bishop Athanasius in 367 (and here as well). That’s the Eastern, and not the Western Church, isn’t it?

Rom 3:2 gives an enuerated list of the OT canon? Which canon of Jesus’ day does Rom 3:2 list? And a correct number doesn’t necessarily mean the correct infallible books.
There was no East/West church divided in the fourth century, there was just one church with an Eastern and Western rite; this is an Eric Svendson argument in his book “Evangelical Answers” aka “Protestant Answers.” It is an attempt to try to split hairs and divide the East from the West even though we Catholics really respect and often learn a great deal from the Christians of the East; perhaps you should read about their liturgies, you may find them very inciteful, I do.
Secondly, Athanasius’ canon list is NOT an authoritative list nor was it ever considered such in the early church, being he was a single Bishop, and that it took councils (for the most part) to have any authoritative gravitas of authority to decipher the canon, if you will, upon Christiandom.
Thirdly, I’m often amazed how Protestants can cite the early church fathers, throw their names around as though they affirm what they also taught?

Athanasius said to the newly baptized…
“You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘And again:’ Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected.”
-“Sermon to the Newly Baptized” ante 373 A.D."
therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html#athanasius

You cite 1 Cor 11:1 as a support of oral tradition; how is that verse a support of oral tradition?

Sorry, my bad. It should be 1 Cor 11:2 where Paul says to pass down (paradosis is the Greek word there) what has been taught.

You’ve cited 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6 as proof of oral tradition delivered by Paul; please list the oral tradition(s) Paul gave to the Thessalonians.

Again, by what means do you want me to list them?
When I show you in the Bible where Paul said to hold fast and keep to all Traditions both written and by oral proclomation and that there is no expiration date on oral Tradition, you apparently want me to give you a written inscripturated list yet as the scripturated list says NOT all of the Apostolic Tradition were inscripturated, some were oral and were passed down through the Apostles who were the leaders in the Church through examples of day-to-day practice as well as within the liturgy(worship of the early church). This is confirmed in an earlier post by Protestant scholars J.N.D Kelly, and F.F. Bruce and yes I have both books.
And as I said in another forum to you, we can through human reason properly deduce that Jesus established an authortative church through the evidence, history, the Bible (which is also a book of history) and extra biblical witnesses) and which was given the power to bind and loose and to inscripturate His word and to pass down Apostolic Tradition through oral means. If you want to know the oral Traditions passed down, then look to what the early church taught in doctrine, practice and liturgy; there you will find a non-sola scriptura postion yet Apostolic position of Christianity.

 

[Montalban]

Quote Montalbal: "There’s NOTHING to say that the Epistles taught all that he ever taught, and in fact the point of him quoting things not mentioned (written) elsewhere are clues that this is the case. Given that he taught inspired teaching orally, and very probably didn’t write it all down, then oral teaching is inspired. We base our traditions on some oral teachings.

The point is this:

1. God saw to it that everything we needed to know was written down and preserved for future generations. For instance, Jesus did many more miracles than what is recorded. If the Catholic Pope one day said God revealed to him a several miracles that are not written in the Gospels. what difference will it make? (Luke 16:19-31)

I don’t know what a Catholic Pope has to do with my beliefs, however, where does it say that it was all written down?

1. Paul and the other Apostles received their teachings directly from God. That affirms the claim of divine inspiration? There were many witnesses to this fact.

I don’t deny this. But where does it say that they put all their divinely inspired lessons down in writing?

1. Who has spoken directly with God since then? Where’s your proof that these oral teachings are from God?

You’re now expanding the topic of debate because you’re unwilling to meet the challenges I laid down.

What ‘proof’ is there that any of the Gospels are the teachings of God?

Say you’re a Christian living in the year 167. You’ve got in front of you two texts; one called “The Acts of Paul”, the other “First Epistle to the Corinthians”. Which ones are from God? How do you know?

 

[Montalban]

“It is silly to think that all early Christians just read the Bible,…”

The earliest Christians had Jesus. They did not need the NT writings.

So the things were written at the time Jesus left?

After that Christians had eye witnesses (the Aposltes) for Jesus. Their testimony supported one another. And they themselves wrote down their testimonies under the divine inspiration of God.

What testimony? It was oral! Where did Jesus say “I give you these things only for this generation, unless you write it all down”?

 

[Bishopite]

That’s the point of what I said, and why I then asked you to list the oral traditions given by Paul to the Thessalonians.

I’m not interested in the tradition behind the canon, I’m well aware of it.

I would like to see your list of the oral traditions that Paul passed on to the Thessalonians.

And, I would like a clearer source for the FF Bruce quotes, and the Canon of Oral Traditions quote, please.

Again, you are asking for an inscripturated list of orally passed down Traditions. Essentially you are asking for an inscripturated list right?
If you want to see the oral Apostolic Traditions passed down, read what the early chuch taught and practiced in the liturgy that’s what F.F. Bruce and J.N.D. Kelly did.
F.F. Bruce quote you asking about is from his book “The Canon of Scripture” page 257. It is in the link I provided. I had to cut some of the article out because of space.

 

[Montalban]

God decided which books should be in the canon.

How did he pass this information on to man?

There is specific criteria for a book to be considered inspired Scripture. The criteria set forth is according to Scripture itself:

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.

The Catholic Church did not decide. The Catholic Church included them in her canon because they were already regarded as divinely inspired.

1. Prophetic Authorship
2. Must not contradict Scripture
3. Must be historically accurate
4. Must proclaim Christ Jesus
   (I worte this list off the top of my head so it is probably missing items and poorly worded. Let’s not nit pick about it)

The reason councils met to create a canon was because many suedo Christian writings were sufacing and the intent was to keep false prophecy from becoming part of the Bible.

BTW: the extra books included in the Catholic Bible do not meet all the criteria.

It seems you’re simply going around in circles. All you offer is unconvincing circular logic.

Where does it say that these tests are *the *tests to be carried out?

Where does it say that they must proclaim Jesus? You would look to the OT to show that?

How could the first ‘scripture’ be tested against #2?

 

[sandusky]

Bishopite:

Rom 3:2 gives an enuerated list of the OT canon? Which canon of Jesus’ day does Rom 3:2 list? And a correct number doesn’t necessarily mean the correct infallible books.

Sorry, that was a bit badly worded; merely pointing out the OT canon had been decided by the Jews; the church was not needed for that; am aware of the disagreements about that as well.

Bishopite:

There was no East/West church divided in the fourth century, there was just one church with an Eastern and Western rite; this is an Eric Svendson argument in his book “Evangelical Answers” aka “Protestant Answers.” It is an attempt to try to split hairs and divide the East from the West even though we Catholics really respect and often learn a great deal from the Christians of the East; perhaps you should read about their liturgies, you may find them very inciteful, I do.

I can understand why you think it’s hair-splitting, but the east and west are divided now, and there were divisions then—Athanasius Contramundum.

Bishopite:

Secondly, Athanasius’ canon list is NOT an authoritative list nor was it ever considered such in the early church, being he was a single Bishop, and that it took councils (for the most part) to have any authoritative gravitas of authority to decipher the canon, if you will, upon Christiandom.

I understand; nothing’s official until Rome says it is.

Bishopite:

Thirdly, I’m often amazed how Protestants can cite the early church fathers, throw their names around as though they affirm what they also taught?

Yes, the ECFs were unanimous on every point of Catholic doctrine, even that which would come in the future, and they were opposed to every point of the yet future protestant doctrine; weren’t they?

Catholics use the reformers in the same way, and the reformers were as unanimous on every point of protestant doctrine as the ECFs were unanimous on every point of Catholic doctrine.

Bishopite:

Again, by what means do you want me to list them?

Cut and paste it from the teaching magisterium’s list—I don’t expect you to go through all of that work.

Bishopite:

When I show you in the Bible where Paul said to hold fast and keep to all Traditions both written and by oral proclomation and that there is no expiration date on oral Tradition

It’s open-ended; thank you.

Bishopite:

F.F. Bruce quote you asking about is from his book “The Canon of Scripture” page 257. It is in the link I provided. I had to cut some of the article out because of space.

Thanks for that.

 

[Montalban]

It seems to me that Protestants here are saying that Scripture is inspired because it is, because it is, because it is.

How do they know? Test it against scripture! (which of course must be inspired, because it is, because it is, because it is).

 

[Ginger2]

You’ll have to pardon me if I’m not up to speed on what’s going on. I chose to do family things today, and I’m only on for a couple mintues tonight.

Quote: “Protestants here are saying that Scripture is inspired because it is, because it is, because it is.”

I think you need to re-read thru the posts if that’s all you got out of this thread.

The Bible was written by several different people. One book/author does not contradict another, but affirms the others. Prophesies were fulfilled thus lending more credibility. etc., etc., etc.,

The bottom line is I assumed Catholics accepted that the Bible is the inerrent word of God. If not, there’s nothing more to say.

 

[sandusky]

It seems to me that Protestants here are saying that Scripture is inspired because it is, because it is, because it is.

How do they know? Test it against scripture! (which of course must be inspired, because it is, because it is, because it is).

How do know it’s inspired?

 

[Montalban]

How do know it’s inspired?

By the maintained and continued tradition from the time of Jesus, the continual testament that these books and not others were. (Other, non-Biblical books are also considered inspired such as the Didache)

How do you know it is?

 

[sandusky]

By the maintained and continued tradition from the time of Jesus, the continual testament that these books and not others were. (Other, non-Biblical books are also considered inspired such as the Didache)

How do you know it is?

Tradition.

 

[Montalban]

You’ll have to pardon me if I’m not up to speed on what’s going on. I chose to do family things today, and I’m only on for a couple mintues tonight.

Quote: “Protestants here are saying that Scripture is inspired because it is, because it is, because it is.”

I think you need to re-read thru the posts if that’s all you got out of this thread.

Sure, you introduce circular tests too, such as “We know Scripture is inspired by testing it against inspired scripture” which begs the question, how do you know that scripture is inspired? What scripture did Paul test his Epistles against when they’re generally considered to have been written before the Gospels.

The Bible was written by several different people.

Wow! Really?

One book/author does not contradict another, but affirms the others. Prophesies were fulfilled thus lending more credibility. etc., etc., etc.,

I agree. How does the Didache contradict Scriptures? If it doesn’t, why’s it not in the Bible?

The bottom line is I assumed Catholics accepted that the Bible is the inerrent word of God. If not, there’s nothing more to say.

I’m sure they do. Why do you think they do this?