Scripture only Defense help please

  • Thread starter Thread starter eleusis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

eleusis

Guest
Can anyone assist with answers for an evangelical coworker I am in discussion with? Here is his letter.
**
Dear Rich,
**Until the late fourth century there were no cannon of books of the scriptures for the Christian Church. “Your words”
Not true. This was general consensus early on as to what books were considered on par with OT scriptures. Although the council of Hippo and Carthage was the official canonization events the books of the N.T. had already been in circulation and regarded on scripture on a par above any other written documents so as we read in Act 2 we have the early members of the Church following in the Apostle doctrines which is direct reference to the scripture available at that time.

We have Paul quoting from Luke 10:7 in his letter to Timothy along with his reference to scripture in Deut 25:4. Timothy was written around 62-66 and Paul regards Luke words as scripture on the same footing as OT scripture which were canonized before the coming of Christ. Luke was written around 59-61 so it is clear that in by AD 66 the early church had already regarded what was written at that time as scripture and the only source of authority for the faith.

You referenced what ML did in a earlier email and implied that it was a destructive force that caused dissension between believers when in fact what ML did was hold to the principle that Sola Scripture was what was needed to ensure we were following God’s instruction and not man. You do not see Israel in the OT taking non-canonical writings and making them the basis of their faith. They relied strictly on what God had revealed in His written word. That is not to say that other writings may have value but they certainly are secondary and possibly informational but in no way are they binding principles that govern God’s people. In short, they are not the inspired Word of God and are not to be placed on the same level or authority with scripture.

I tried to indicate to you when we talked earlier about what did Jesus and his apostle refer to as a basis of what was eternally true and that was always OT scripture and not some other source. In conclusion, as NT believers we are expected to follow that same principle that Jesus and his apostle followed. We rely on the Word of God as the objective measure of our faith.

You must reconcile that fact. If God was powerful enough to create the universe then He is surely powerful enough to give us a objective measure to follow his percepts
 
Here is the original letter I sent in reply to his questions about the basis of the Catholic faith:

Dear Ricky,
You asked my what the Catholic faith bases its authority on. Only Scripture “solo scriptura” or on what? Your questions challenged me to go relearn my Catholic faith to present an adequate answer. But I must ask that you put aside your prejudices, you have been brought up and study only what the non-Catholics have taught you and given you to read, unless you are a rare person indeed. What I am going to present you with is what we Catholics believe and accept to the best of my knowledge. I challenge you to have an open mind.

The answer to what authority do I base my faith on is the Bible, Tradition and the Magesterium of the Church (which is the teaching authority of the College of Cardinals which is the body of learned men who have dedicated their lives to understanding and researching scripture and matters of faith). Catholics do not just rely upon scripture and don’t rely on personal interpretation of sacred scripture because this leads to confusion (just look at the various -23,000 known- protestant religions and their issues; like the one you pointed out between Baptists and Methodists about immersion or not when baptizing). The Magesterium is not above the authority of scripture but as is written in one of the church records Dei Verbum “This teaching office is not above the word of God but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with the divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit”.

The concept of only scripture is not to be found in the bible and so is sort of self refuting. The concept would have been unacceptable to the earl church fathers who had no bible to use. It would also have eliminated some concepts of Christianity which are corner stones to our common faith such as the Trinity or the humanity of Christ. The Holy Trinity isn’t in scripture, accordingly since its not there it shouldn’t, according to the only scripture concept, be accepted because it was not part of our revealed faith until after 300AD. Doctrine of what has become the Christian faith evolved over several hundred years following the resurrection of Jesus.

Until the late fourth century there was no cannon of books of the scriptures for the Christian Church (back then it was the Catholic church), there was no bible. You mentioned that there were many letters circling around the early church, this is true but it was not just the ones that came to form the bible of today but also letters that we today know don’t belong as being part of the inspired word of God (Gospel of Thomas, Epistle of Clement, Acts of Peter, Acts of John and others). That means that for almost four hundred years (roughly the same time as from present day until the Mayflower sailed) the Church had no bible to thump for solo scriptura arguments. So how did they know what was right or wrong? Simple oral traditions.

I hope this helps with answer your question to me and clear up some of the Catholic position. Thanks for allowing me this opportunity to share my faith with you. I await your reply or further questions.
 
Well he is right in the sense that there was a general consensus about Scripture, but the larger point he did not deal with is that he has NO authoritative biblical basis for rejecting the Gospel of Thomas et al. and gave no indication how his Bible (with 5 books tossed out) is the totality of Scripture.

It’s garbage-can logic:

“That’s a garbage-can.” (This book belongs in the Bible.)

“How do you know it’s a garbage-can?” (Why does it belong in the Bible?)

“Because it has garbage in it.” (Because it’s inspired.)

“How do you know it’s garbage?” (How do you know it’s inspired?)

“Because it’s in the garbage-can.” (Because it’s in the Bible.)

Also, if he is going to use the “quotation equals canonicity” on Paul, he needs to deal with why that does not apply when the deutercanonical books are quoted.

Scott
 
I have just a small contribution:

the O.T. Hebrews were not exclusively “people of the book.” I think that the format of most of their Temple rituals, even those commanded by God, were not spelled out in Scripture.
 
Also I note that he writes: “we have the early members of the Church following in the Apostle doctrines which is direct reference to the scripture available at that time.”

Well, yes, the early Church was following the Apostolic doctrines. That is precisely the meaning of Tradition! They weren’t getting all their doctrine from “the scripture available at the time.” If they were, then they would have to keep waiting for more scripture to be written so they could preach more doctrine. But in fact, the early Church preached the Apostolic doctrine as received from the Apostles, from the very beginning.
 
Scott Waddell:
Also, if he is going to use the “quotation equals canonicity” on Paul, he needs to deal with why that does not apply when the deutercanonical books are quoted.Scott
Click to expand...
Scott do you have any quotes to use as reference? Your post is very lucid. Thank you.
Rich
 
I address sola Scriptura in this thread

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=249396#post249396

The fact is that the Didache was more widely accepted by the Early Church than was Revelation. Additionally, the fact that certain writings reference others doesn’t prove that any of them are Scripture. Lastly, as I explain in more detail in the other thread, by stating that these writings were accepted by the Early Church, he is clearly relying on the opinion of the Early Church (rather than what is actually stated in Scripture) for knowing what those writings are.

Good luck. You just might be walking into a brick wall as I did in this thread. forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=19069 :banghead:
 
Scott Waddell:
Well he is right in the sense that there was a general consensus about Scripture, but the larger point he did not deal with is that he has NO authoritative biblical basis for rejecting the Gospel of Thomas et al. and gave no indication how his Bible (with 5 books tossed out) is the totality of Scripture.

It’s garbage-can logic:

“That’s a garbage-can.” (This book belongs in the Bible.)

“How do you know it’s a garbage-can?” (Why does it belong in the Bible?)

“Because it has garbage in it.” (Because it’s inspired.)

“How do you know it’s garbage?” (How do you know it’s inspired?)

“Because it’s in the garbage-can.” (Because it’s in the Bible.)

Also, if he is going to use the “quotation equals canonicity” on Paul, he needs to deal with why that does not apply when the deutercanonical books are quoted.

Scott
Click to expand...
How do you know that your Canon is correct?
Because the Magisterium made the infallible proclamation that it is such.
How do you know that the Magisterium has the ability of infallibility?
Because Jesus gave Peter the power to do such a thing.
How do you know that Peter was given this power?
Because it is spoken of in the Gospel.
How do you now that that is the correct interpretation?
Because the Magisterium has infallibly stated that that is the correct interpretation.
How do you know that the Magisterium has the ability of infallibility?
Magisterium is infallible because they tell us that their interpretation of the Gospel is infallible.

I am not saying that Catholicism is not correct but they run into the same problem of tautology when all arguments are taken to the end. God transcends our simple ability to do logic.
 
The Lutheran statement on this is as such…

We believe in the Scripture stems out of our faith in the Gospel.
Our faith in the Gospel stems from gifts given to us at Baptism and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The differences in our interpretations of the Scripture and other Godly matters stems from our imperfect fallen nature and our propensity to sin.
 
40.png
eleusis:
Scott do you have any quotes to use as reference? Your post is very lucid. Thank you.
Rich
Click to expand...
Do you want quotes form the deuterocanon? Here goes:

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.
Code: 
				  					Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in  					heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure. 					

				Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15  					- what you hate, do not do to others. 					

				Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows  					Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation. 					

				Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith  					11:19 - sheep without a shepherd. 					

				Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as  					Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth. 					

				Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made  					part of the deuterocanonical books. 					

				Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades"  					references Wisdom 16:13. 					

				Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of  					Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers. 					

				Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1  					Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17. 					

				Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28. 					

				Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries  					follows Wisdom 2:18.
There’s more, go to:

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
 
I would only like to add Jesus’s instructions concerning the Pharisees.
He encouraged His disciples to honor the teachings of the Pharisees (they sit on the seat of Moses) - but not to emulate their actions.

This is incredibly revealing. This shows that the Pharisees had the responsiblity of interpretation. This shows that jews did not individually read scripture and interpret for themselves.
It also shows that personal fallibility does not negate an office that has been delegated by God.
 
Protestantism uses “Bible Alone” for the rule of Faith. That is why there are NUMEROUS denominations. Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guid His people into ALL truth, not cause one to believe something and then a month later interpret the same verses another way and change his beliefs. The Bible indeed needs an interpruter. The Catholic Church relies on The Bible, Apostolic Tradition, and the Church for the truth. It has all been passed down from the begining and not taken to another for “their” point of veiw, but teaches what Christ and His apostles originaly taught.

God give you peace.
 
40.png
eleusis:
Can anyone assist with answers for an evangelical coworker I am in discussion with? Here is his letter.
**
Dear Rich,
**Until the late fourth century there were no cannon of books of the scriptures for the Christian Church. **“Your words”
Not true. This was general consensus early on as to what books were considered on par with OT scriptures. Although the council of Hippo and Carthage was the official canonization events the books of the N.T. had already been in circulation and regarded on scripture on a par above any other written documents so as we read in Act 2 we have the early members of the Church following in the Apostle doctrines which is direct reference to the scripture available at that time…
Click to expand...
Actually your original argument still stands with a little clarification. There was no 27 book NT canon that fell out of the sky as you rightly mentioned. However as your evangelical counterpart rightly menttioned the canon was almost set prior to the councils also true. But your theseis is still valid and his objection carries little weight. Here is why the 20 or so books that were generally accepted were known as protocanincal new testament books well how were they known if not for catholic tradition there was no council yet we agree. Well they were known by the tradition of the church as still there is no inspired table of contents lying around. At this point the christian communites and the fathers of the church handed down orally their won uniqe tradition of canon and you are right there were variations at this time like the acceptance of the Didache, Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, these books were commonly accepted in certain communites meanwhile Revelation, Jude, HEbrews, James, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter among others were commonly rejected the councils settled these books known as the dueterocanonical new testament. Either way you slice it we know our NT canon by tradition whether it be apostolic communites, the fathers or councils all of these are catholic sources which we know the canon. We don not know the Bible by sola scriptura or by the table of contents in the NIV.
 
Also, how about the Egyptian Eunich who said he didn’t understand scripture “how can I without someone to teach me”.

And I agree with the reference above to the Jew’s not being “sola scriptura”. Heck, hasn’t anyone seen Fiddler on the Roof. Tradition is extremely big for the Jews, and not merely the Jews of our era, this is something that goes back to times well before Christ. Only the Catholic Church has brought that fundamental portion of the culture into which Christ was born forward into the current Church.

Well, it’s late, I’m outta here!

CARose
 
Why don’t you ask him how Paul can quote Lukes gospel when Lukes gospel was written after the death of Paul. The accepted date for the gospel of Luke is between 80 and 90AD. The accepteed date for the epistle of Timothy is between 63 and 67AD. Paul died in 67AD I think.

My info is according to the New American Bible.

I would like to know where he got his dates from. They do not match up.
 
One of the things that most blows holes all in Sola Scriptura (to me anyway) is the book of Jude in the NT. There are only 24 verses, but 1/8 th of them are quotes from Non-canonical OT sources, like the Book of Enoch (See verses 14-- 15) & the Assumption of Moses (See verse 9). That’s pretty weird, but obviously the early church fathers considered it canon, so…

The authority of the church is the real issue I guess.
Have fun!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top