Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Bengoshi]

That rock was Christ. I find it fascinating that Christ, who is the Rock, names Simon to be the Rock of His Church.

It’s either Jesus is the Rock or Peter is. The Bible also says that Christ is the chief cornerstone. Clearly, it is not Peter. Rock refers to Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ. Anyway, this is not the topic of this thread.

 

[Bengoshi]

I thought you might say that.

It seems to me, then, that this list of “essentials”, as determined by this dubious group of men, is irrelevant. For all “essentials” could be included in the discussion of God’s Unity, yes? Or, one could conclude that their man-made “essential”, although not listed explicitly, is part of the discussion in “Christ’s Atoning Death” or “The Bodily Resurrection of Christ” or assign it to whatever “essential” their personal interpretation concludes it belongs. :sad_yes:

How can you call them dubious? They are highly educated men. Bible scholars and theologians. In fact, Dr. Geisler’s book, Answering Islam, is even sold here at CAF!

 

[JonNC]

The offical statis of the CC in regards to all other “christian” churches is:

They are member of the Christian Expressions of the world, but with less
of the Truths of God than the Catholic Church which has been passed down
as the same since the beginning of Christianity.

In your example your denominaition does not have some of the Doctrines
of the first expression of the Christian Church. But you have do have
some and are a reconized christian expression but with less of the
Revelation that God has given to the first church… (regardless of the
name of that church. called catholic or not)

You can offer salvation through the SS and that is enough but
there are other means of God’s Grace which God provides to
all believers that you are not using for your own benefit
and for your call to be “holy”… through your responsablity of
your own santification.

My view of your denomination and others is “Isn’t it kind of
sad” that your denomination has taken from the original
doctrines and watered it down to the extent that though you
are being nourished spiritually it is with less of the
wonderful gifts that God has revealed to us for
our own fellowship with Him and to deal with
the evils of our own lives…

I think where you are not seeing most of this in the right contex is that you deny that the
original “body of Christ”: The first group of men and women “The first believers” had and has a “memory” of that body.

Your view is that all the body has is some letters from that memory… But we have what we can call it’s oral memories… passed on from mouth to ear since those time to now instead of just letters of the same memory.

There are some orally memories which are not written down in the scriptures but are inspired from the same Holy Spirit as what was put in those scriptures.

My brother walks up to me and saids:

Our sister is in need of our help.

my brother writes me a note and it saids:

Our sister is in need of our help.

Both are the Truth… just communicated to
me in different forms.

The new testement has eight different writers…

They all also gave oral sermons in their lives…

and they all also wrote letters.

each of what they expressed is God’s Truth.

You accept that eight men wrote God’s turth… and yet you deny that God can reveal his truth through the Pope.

The pope is a man… the writers of the new testement
were men…

You say, the pope has not authority yet you claim the eight writers did.

Sounds to me that you have replaced our popes with the eight writers of the new testement as your popes.

If they could have chosen to reveal God’s turth than why not the other Bishops of the Christian history?

What is the difference? If yours can have the Truth than our Pope can too.

Lets be fair here…

The writers were there, Pope Benedict XVI, as great a Christian man as he is, was not.
I appreciate and understandwhat you have said here. But be fair to me, I have not denied that the pope can have the Truth. What I question is the idea that the Catholic Church under the pope has an exclusivity to the claim of Truth.

Jon

 

[Bengoshi]

Very good.

Are there any RC traditions that you object to?

Of course. That’s why I’m no longer RC.

 

[Bengoshi]

'zactly!

If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, then why the existence of over 40,000 Christian denominations, each claiming to be “conquered by the Holy Scriptures”?

This goes to the other posters as well. Why do Catholics keep on focusing on the existence of the various denominations to discredit Protestantism as a whole? In fact, this is irrelevant, because as I have said before, in spite of these differences, we all still consider each other to belong to the ONE body of Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

How can you call them dubious? They are highly educated men. Bible scholars and theologians.

No doubt they are knowledgable about Scripture.

But then again, so are the JWs who come to my door.

I call them dubious because they are fallible men. And by definition, fallible men are going to be wrong. Going. To. Be. Wrong.

It would behoove all of us to exercise some doubt or healthy skepticism regarding their man-made, extra-biblical tradition.

Oh, and I noticed in their man-made, extra-biblical list of essentials there was no mention of Love. That’s quite a bizarre list of essentials which doesn’t mention God’s love, nor love of neighbor. (Or is it "already included’ in one of the other essentials, like the repentance thing? )

 

[PRmerger]

Of course. That’s why I’m no longer RC.

Fair enough.

So what traditions of the CC do you feel contradict Scripture?

 

[PRmerger]

This goes to the other posters as well. Why do Catholics keep on focusing on the existence of the various denominations to discredit Protestantism as a whole? In fact, this is irrelevant, because as I have said before, in spite of these differences, we all still consider each other to belong to the ONE body of Christ.

We cite the existence of 40,000 denominations not to discredit Protestantism specifically, but to discredit the “the Bible is the sole rule of faith” paradigm. Clearly, that paradigm has led to this disastrous and obscene 40,000 statistic. Now, any yahoo can read the Bible, determine that his pastor is preaching something non-biblical and start his own church and preach his own gospel.

The existence of 40,000 denominations is a paradigm created in hell. And, is proof that reading the Scriptures without ceding to the pillar and foundation of truth will lead to this type of obscenity.

 

[moondweller]

“The original 16th-century revolutionaries had the mysterious conviction that you could attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize their Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.” - G. K. Chesterton (bold, italics mine)

Hyperbole. But since the concern of this thread is Sola Scriptura, can you show me where any of the aforementioned actions are condoned or sanctioned in the N.T. Scriptures? Or, for that matter, where believers in Christ, or any church officials, are ever taught in the Scriptures to harm or persecute anyone? Historically, did the Apostles imprison or burn at the stake those who disagreed with their doctrines? Did they physically harm them at all? Based on the historical account preserved in the Scriptures, it was unbelievers that did the persecuting, not the other way around. Know anything about “Church” history, PR? When did “the Church” begin to have the authority to do the persecuting? And on what authority did it inflict it? Certainly not the N.T. Scriptures.

 

[moondweller]

joe379:

Md, let’s assume that you are right and the CC cannot be trusted. Help me find the church of Matthew 16, forever guided by the holy spirit, into all truth,

We’ve been through this before, Joe. Let’s go to the Scripture itself. In Matthew 16 Jesus simply states that He will build His church. He states nothing there about it being forever guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. Now, according to the Scriptures we learn that all believers in Christ (whether Jew or Gentile) are baptized by the Holy Spirit into one body which is the church (1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 1:18, 24; Eph. 1:22-23), of which Christ is the Savior (Eph. 5:23), and to Whom she (the church in Matt. 16) is to be subject (Eph. 5:24).

Now the Scriptures also acknowledge many local assemblies of believers which it calls “churches” (Acts 16:5; 1 Cor. 7:17; 14:13; 16:19; Gal. 1:2; 1:22; Rev. 1:11). So, contextually, we see a fundamental difference between the “church” Christ Himself is building (Mat. 16:18) and the local assemblies called “churches.” Of these local assemblies elders (Gr. presbuteros) were to be appointed by those local assemblies. These elders are also called episkopos, translated overseer/bishop (Titus 1:5, 7). They’re one and the same. But nowhere in the N.T. Scriptures do we find any one of these “churches” being appointed the “teaching church” over all the other churches, nor any one of the elders/bishops/overseers of a local assembly appointed to be an infallible ruler over all the other elders/bishops/overseers and church assemblies. In fact even Peter referred to himself as a “fellow elder” (Gr. sumpresbuteros), instructing the other elders to shepherd the flock “allotted” (a restrictive term) to their charge, but not as “lording it over” them (1 Pet. 5 1-3). And what we don’t find in the N.T. Scriptures is any of those locally appointed elders/bishops/overseers ever being called “priests” (Gr. hiereus). There is the general priesthood of all believers in the body of Christ, the church, but no separate, functioning priesthood operating in the local assemblies - no need (1 Cor. 5:7; Heb. 9 & 10):

The promise Jesus made was that He would ask the Father and He would give another “Helper” who would be with us forever (Jn. 14:16). This “Helper,” we learn from Scripture, is the Holy Spirit whom the Father would send in Christ’s name, and would teach them all things (i.e., all things pertaining to the “mystery of Christ;” things concerning His sacrificial death and salvation), and bring to their remembrance all that He had said to them (Jn. 14:26). Obviously this “remembrance” part pertains only the Apostles since only they were the ones who were personally taught by Christ. And He would “guide” them into all truth (soteriological), and would “disclose” to them what is to come (eschatological (Jn. 16:13).

This “all truth,” both soteriological and eschatological, into which the Holy Spirit guided them was subsequently preserved for us and all generations by the same Holy Spirit in theopneustos (God-breathed), Holy Writ: The Scriptures (1 Tim. 3:16). The same way God had preserved His Word in this world since Moses.

Jesus Himself practiced SS when He appealed to the theopneustos Scriptures as the final authority, an authority higher than any of the teachings, opinions and traditions of the religious leaders of His day (Matt. 22:29), even angelic (Matt. 4:4,6,7,10). He tested them by Scripture. Also we read in Acts 17 that the Jews in Berea were more “noble-minded” than those in Thessalonica because they had received the word concerning the Man Christ Jesus and salvation through Him with great eagerness, but they “examined the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Just as Jesus, after His bodily resurrection, beginning with Moses and all the prophets, explained to His believing disciples the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures (Lk. 24:27,32,45). And when the rich man wanted to return to warn his brothers about falling into the same fate as he, Abraham told him that they had Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. IOW, they had the Scriptures. And if they didn’t listen to the Scriptures they wouldn’t be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead (Lk. 16:19-31).

So, you see, Joe, AJ was very astute when he posted on this thread:*“IMHO, Scripture is an excellent canon for norming. It is ABOVE and BEYOND all parties. All literate people know the words of Romans 3:23; I can’t change them, you can’t change them, no one can change them - they are there in black and white for ALL to see and know. All Christians accept this as the inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of GOD Himself. It has a very historic and broad embrace.”*Yes, the embrace of even Christ Himself.

 

[joe370]

Hey Josiah, no need to respond to my questions with commentary on the CC. I already know your views of the CC. This is a thread about defending sola scriptura so again no need to bring up, for example, the CCC - 87 or docility. Please, start another thread and bring it up there.

In ALL disciplines (nothin’ unique about theology in this sense), there is the issue of norming. A position is taken.

For example the position taken by many Christians regarding the symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist vs the position taken by many Christians regarding the literal interpretation of our Lords Last supper!

…the issue then becomes “is it correct?” Addressing that question is called “norming.”

Got it! Now, use norming which is employed to address questions, such as the one I have asked, to finally resolve this issue once and for all, for all those true presence detractors? Address the question using norming to evaluate and arbitrate?

In norming, normally the first issue is WHAT will be embraced as the “norma normans” (as it’s called in epistemology). WHAT will serve as the “rule” (straight edge) or “canon” (measuring stick)? WHAT will be the standard, the plumbline? Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon (“measuring stick”), rule (“straight edge”) or norma normans (as it’s called in epistemology). That praxis is called Sola Scriptura.

Aj, either the literal interpretation of the Eucharist or the metaphorical interpretation is correct; one is definitely wrong. So, again, let’s use “norma normans” (as it’s called in epistemology)- as the “rule” (straight edge) or “canon” (measuring stick)- which is the praxis called sola scriptura to resolve this doctrinal dispute. Surely SS can settle this matter, once and for all? GO… Remember, you are the one that said: Addressing that question is called "norming, so address the question and give me an authoritative answer. If you come back with something like: this is a hermeneutical or exegetical question then norming cannot address this question or any question for that matter.

If it is a hermeneutical/ exegetical question then who or what, in the end, is authorized to resolve and definitively answer this question, any question for that matter?

 

[joe370]

Hey Md, how’s it going?

Originally Posted by joe379
Md, let’s assume that you are right and the CC cannot be trusted. Help me find the church of Matthew 16, forever guided by the holy spirit, into all truth,
We’ve been through this before, Joe. Let’s go to the Scripture itself. In Matthew 16 Jesus simply states that He will build His church.

Got it. So, the local churches of the NT were churches of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus Christ, starting on Pentecost, in Jerusalem?

The CC, the EOC and all of the PC’s were churches founded by mere men as opposed to Jesus - is that what you are saying? Or, were/are the local churches of the NT, the EOC, the CC and all of the Protestant churches, the one church founded by God?

He states nothing there about it being forever guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth.

So, the following words do not apply to the church founded by Jesus and built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets? Jesus was not talking to the apostles who belonged to His church when He said the following;

"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

OK…Who then is forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth? These words apply to whom???

 

[Bengoshi]

No doubt they are knowledgable about Scripture.

But then again, so are the JWs who come to my door.

I call them dubious because they are fallible men. And by definition, fallible men are going to be wrong. Going. To. Be. Wrong.

It would behoove all of us to exercise some doubt or healthy skepticism regarding their man-made, extra-biblical tradition.

Oh, and I noticed in their man-made, extra-biblical list of essentials there was no mention of Love. That’s quite a bizarre list of essentials which doesn’t mention God’s love, nor love of neighbor. (Or is it "already included’ in one of the other essentials, like the repentance thing? )

Let me remind you my dear that your pope is also merely human and hence, fallible and, according to your words, dubious. Nor is he a personal witness to the life and works of Christ as he was not part of the Christ-commissioned apostles.

It is perfectly alright to doubt the list of essential and non-essential doctrines. In fact, we are free to challenge it. We have the duty to present our side or interpretation of the truth based on the Word of God. Now, it is up to each person’s conscience to decide what is Truth, provided that they really take the time to read and study the Scriptures for themselves and not just rely on any person’s interpretation. This is exactly what the Bereans did in Acts 17:11 when no less than the Apostle Paul preached to them:

“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

 

[Bengoshi]

Fair enough.

So what traditions of the CC do you feel contradict Scripture?

That would be a lot, although some are not necessarily officially taught by the RCC, however, the problem that they are being tolerated by the heirarchy. I do admit that some of them may still be addressed within the RCC. In fact, the Second Vatican Council has already addressed several of the problems posed by the Protestants in the 16th century. Some of them which still persist are:

1. Rosary
2. Worship of and attribution of independent powers to images
3. Indulgences and Purgatory
4. Praying to Mary and the other saints, who are all physically dead
5. The Papacy
6. Being too ritualistic, mechanical, and boring (most homilies by priests are)
7. Earning salvation by merit system alongside faith
8. Auricular confession to a priest for the forgiveness of sins
9. The Brown Scapular and other similar devices
10. Compulsory priestly celibacy (only the Roman Church does this)

The above list is by no means exhaustive and as I’ve said, some of them are merely “folk traditions” that the RCC heirarchy tolerates. Please don’t even try to prove to me anymore that they are not officially taught. The fact that they are tolerated or sometimes even encouraged by priests is bad enough as it is already.

Oh, and by the way, I enjoy watching EWTN!

 

[JacobG]

One of the problems I see so often is that catholics, mormons, JW’s, Pentecostals, for example, misunderstand and believe that Christ’s “church” is a building or denomination. It isn’t. It has nothing to do with “religion” but RELATIONSHIP…with Jesus Christ. You can belong to the biggest church or denomination but that means nothing. You can be the most “religious” person…but that too is meaningless. The church that Christ built is made up of all born-again believers everywhere. Belonging to the biggest church/denom is not an automatic ticket to heaven. The Scriptures tell us in Matt that strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it!

 

[ncgolf]

We’ve been through this before, Joe. Let’s go to the Scripture itself. In Matthew 16 Jesus simply states that He will build His church. He states nothing there about it being forever guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. Now, according to the Scriptures we learn that all believers in Christ (whether Jew or Gentile) are baptized by the Holy Spirit into one body which is the church (1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 1:18, 24; Eph. 1:22-23), of which Christ is the Savior (Eph. 5:23), and to Whom she (the church in Matt. 16) is to be subject (Eph. 5:24).

I would say that Christ is the head. The Church and Jesus are one … Jesus the bridegroom and the Church as the bride. They are no longer two but one … this is the intimacy shared by Jesus and the Church. I don’t think the bridegroom is going to mislead his bride.

This “all truth,” both soteriological and eschatological, into which the Holy Spirit guided them was subsequently preserved for us and all generations by the same Holy Spirit in theopneustos (God-breathed), Holy Writ: The Scriptures (1 Tim. 3:16). The same way God had preserved His Word in this world since Moses.

Jesus Himself practiced SS when He appealed to the theopneustos Scriptures as the final authority, an authority higher than any of the teachings, opinions and traditions of the religious leaders of His day (Matt. 22:29), even angelic (Matt. 4:4,6,7,10). He tested them by Scripture.

Jesus was Sola Scriptura, Jesus is the Word become flesh. What better teacher than the author himself. Jesus was questioned earlier in Matthew about his authority to teach. His authority to teach was because He was God, He was the author. Does SS preclude an authority or commission to teach?

So, you see, Joe, AJ was very astute when he posted on this thread:*“IMHO, Scripture is an excellent canon for norming. It is ABOVE and BEYOND all parties. All literate people know the words of Romans 3:23; I can’t change them, you can’t change them, no one can change them - they are there in black and white for ALL to see and know. All Christians accept this as the inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of GOD Himself. It has a very historic and broad embrace.”*Yes, the embrace of even Christ Himself.

You miss the point as does AJ. Who has tried to change the words? You are right in saying the words are all there for all to see … why then not a Sola Understanding for lack of a better word. You say x about Romans 23, someone else says y and I say z about the same passage … what does that get us. We all look at the same inspired, inerrant word of God but we see different things. What part of Sola Scriptura makes you correct and makes y and z incorrect.

What is the norming for understanding? Is it mere agreement?

Someone is misunderstanding this inspired, inerrant word of God and the real rub is … who is it.

Is there 1 understanding of the inspired, inerrant word of God?

 

[moondweller]

Hey Md, how’s it going?

Got it. So, the local churches of the NT were churches of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus Christ, starting on Pentecost, in Jerusalem?

The CC, the EOC and all of the PC’s were churches founded by mere men as opposed to Jesus - is that what you are saying? Or, were/are the local churches of the NT, the EOC, the CC and all of the Protestant churches, the one church founded by God?

So, the following words do not apply to the church founded by Jesus and built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets? Jesus was not talking to the apostles who belonged to His church when He said the following;

"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

Go back and read my post again.

OK…Who then is forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth? These words apply to whom???

Go back and read John 16:13. In context who is He talking to, and where in that verse did Jesus employ the word “forever?”

Here’s what I wrote:"The promise Jesus made was that He would ask the Father and He would give another “Helper” who would be with us forever (Jn. 14:16). This “Helper,” we learn from Scripture, is the Holy Spirit whom the Father would send in Christ’s name, and would teach them all things (i.e., all things pertaining to the “mystery of Christ;” things concerning His sacrificial death and salvation), and bring to their remembrance all that He had said to them (Jn. 14:26). Obviously this “remembrance” part pertains only the Apostles since only they were the ones who were personally taught by Christ. And He would “guide” them into all truth (soteriological), and would “disclose” to them what is to come (eschatological (Jn. 16:13).

This “all truth,” both soteriological and eschatological, into which the Holy Spirit guided them was subsequently preserved for us and all generations by the same Holy Spirit in theopneustos (God-breathed), Holy Writ: The Scriptures (1 Tim. 3:16). The same way God had preserved His Word in this world since Moses."

 

[moondweller]

I would say that Christ is the head.

And based on Scripture you would be right (read Eph. 5:23).

The Church and Jesus are one … Jesus the bridegroom and the Church as the bride. They are no longer two but one … this is the intimacy shared by Jesus and the Church.

Yes, there’s a mystical union between Christ and His body/bride. But they are not the same ontologically any more than through marriage the man becomes the woman and the woman becomes the man. Jesus is head of the body, but He is its Savior. He does not save Himself (Eph. 5:23).

I don’t think the bridegroom is going to mislead his bride.

Never suggested anything of the sort. He said the Holy Spirit would lead His Apostles into all truth. He did. This “all truth” was preserved for subsequent generations in theopneustos Holy Writ: the N.T. Scriptures. The Scriptures mislead no one. They’re the Word of God

Jesus was Sola Scriptura, Jesus is the Word become flesh. What better teacher than the author himself.

Jesus authored no Scriptures.

Jesus was questioned earlier in Matthew about his authority to teach. His authority to teach was because He was God, He was the author.

Jesus authored no Scriptures.

Does SS preclude an authority or commission to teach?

SS is not about teaching, nor the authority to teach. Jesus did, however, constantly appeal to the Scriptures in His teaching.

You miss the point as does AJ.

I think you miss the point.

You are right in saying the words are all there for all to see … why then not a Sola Understanding for lack of a better word. You say x about Romans 23, someone else says y and I say z about the same passage … what does that get us. We all look at the same inspired, inerrant word of God but we see different things. What part of Sola Scriptura makes you correct and makes y and z incorrect.

This is a hermeneutical/exegetical issue, not SS.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tomster,

Thanks for the link! I think it accurate to say you have made an excellent presentation.

Speaking of fundamental issues:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=315887&page=17

post #'s 246, 247, 248

The painful (at least for a protestant willing to look beyond the end of the nose) truth is that there is such division springing forth from SS. To claim that they are united in the ‘essentials’ is totally delusional! Honest. Pick any ‘essential’ Baptism, Confession, Communion and that Christ will send His Holy Spirit to protect His Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) to be free of doctrinal error - and these guys are all over the place. Baptism is requried, no…it is a good idea…no it is just a ritual … no, just forget it! The same can be said times 20,000 different religions ALL claiming to follow Christ.

The idea about no house divided can stand does come to mind at this point.

God bless

 

[T_More]

And based on Scripture you would be right (read Eph. 5:23).Yes, there’s a mystical union between Christ and His body/bride. But they are not the same ontologically any more than through marriage the man becomes the woman and the woman becomes the man. Jesus is head of the body, but He is its Savior. He does not save Himself (Eph. 5:23).Never suggested anything of the sort. He said the Holy Spirit would lead His Apostles into all truth. He did. This “all truth” was preserved for subsequent generations in theopneustos Holy Writ: the N.T. Scriptures. The Scriptures mislead no one. They’re the Word of GodJesus authored no Scriptures.Jesus authored no Scriptures.SS is not about teaching, nor the authority to teach. Jesus did, however, constantly appeal to the Scriptures in His teaching.I think you miss the point.This is a hermeneutical/exegetical issue, not SS.

Moondweller, did not Christ appeal to only the OT?

What sort of method would be used to determine the books that we have accepted in the NT were inspired? If the NT is the infallible Word of God, and an instrument/church was used to make the determination of what is inspired, what would that make the instrument the Holy Spirit used?