The Perfect Answer for Sola Scriptura

[RMP]

absolutely not, pay attention to the words I used. I said the word can to demenstrate it IS possible for a teacher to be correct in his teaching, If someone teaches truth, it has to be infallable. How can truth be fallable. ALL truth is infallable. To deny this would mean, a teacher cannot teach truth at all, so why bother listening.

 

[p90]

RMP:

I said the word can to demenstrate it IS possible for a teacher to be correct in his teaching, If someone teaches truth, it has to be infallable. How can truth be fallable. ALL truth is infallable. To deny this would mean, a teacher cannot teach truth at all, so why bother listening.

Thanks for the clarification.

~Matt

 

[mayra_hart]

**6. The first Christians did not have a Bible

**​

Biblical scholars tell us that the last book of the New Testament was not written until the end of the 1st century A.D., that is, until around the year 100 A.D. (9) This fact would leave roughly a 65-year gap between Our Lord’s Ascension into Heaven and the completion of the Bible as we know it. The question that begs to be asked, therefore, is this: “Who or what served as the final, infallible authority during that time?”

If the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then since the Church existed for a time without the entire written Word of God, there would have been situations and doctrinal issues which could not have been resolved with finality until all of the New Testament books were complete. The ship would have been left without a rudder, so to speak, at least for a time. But this goes contrary to the statements and promises that Our Lord made about His Church – particularly, “behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Matt. 28:20) – not to mention that He told His disciples: “I will not leave you orphans.” (John 14:18).

This issue is of particular importance, as the first several decades of the Church’s existence were tumultuous. Persecutions had already begun, believers were being martyred, the new Faith was struggling to grow, and some false teachings had already appeared (cf. Galatians 1:6-9). If the Bible were the Christian’s only rule of faith, and since the Bible was not fully written – much less settled in terms of its canon – until 65 years after Christ’s Ascension, how did the early Church possibly deal with doctrinal questions without an authority on how to proceed?

Now the Protestant may be tempted to offer two possible responses: 1) that the Apostles were temporarily the final authority while the New Testament was being written, and 2) that the Holy Spirit was given to the Church and that His direct guidance is what bridged the time gap between Our Lord’s Ascension and the completion of the New Testament.

Regarding the first response, it is true that Jesus Christ invested the Apostles with His authority; however, the

 

[mayra_hart]

Bible nowhere indicates that this authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle. Quite the contrary, the Bible record is quite clear in that a) it nowhere says that once the last Apostle dies, the written form of God’s Word will become the final authority; and b) the Apostles clearly chose successors who, in turn, possessed the same authority to “bind and loose.” This is shown in the election of Matthias as a replacement for Judas Iscariot (Cf. Acts 1:15-26) and in St. Paul’s passing on his Apostolic Authority to Timothy and Titus (cf. 2 Timothy 1:6, and Titus 1:5). If anything, a Protestant only gives credence to the Catholic teaching by insisting on the authority of the Apostles.

Regarding the second response – that the Holy Spirit’s direct guidance bridged the time gap – the problem with such a position is that the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit Himself is an extra-Biblical (That is, “outside of the Bible”) source of authority. Naturally the Bible speaks very clearly of the Holy Spirit’s presence among the believers and His role in teaching the disciples “all truth,” but if the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit were, in fact, the ultimate authority during those 65 years, then the history of the Church would have known two successive ultimate authorities: first the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, with this guidance then being replaced by the Scriptures, which would have become sola, or the “only” ultimate authority. And if this situation of an extra-Biblical ultimate authority is permissible from a Protestant perspective, does this not open the door to the Catholic position, which says that the teaching authority of the Church is the direct ultimate authority – deriving her authority from Christ and her teaching from Scripture and Tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit was given to the Church by Jesus Christ, and it is exactly this same Spirit who protects the Church’s visible head, the Pope, and the teaching authority of the Church by never permitting him or it to lapse into error. The Catholic believes that Christ indeed did give the Holy Spirit to the Church and that the Holy Spirit has always been present in the Church, teaching it all truth (John 16:13) and continually safeguarding its doctrinal integrity, particularly through the office of the Pope. Thus the Gospel would still have been preached – authoritatively and infallibly – even if not a single verse of the New Testament had ever been. **

**

 

[Aris]

1. Early Christians always had the Scriptures available to them. The Old Testament was around before Pentecost.

1. I reject the premise to such a question. The church recognized the canon, not declared it.
2. Because it supports truth, like a pillar or foundation. It isn’t the source of all truth.

~Matt

1. The old testament yes but the new testament no. The New testament slowly came into its final form only in the 4th century.

So they relied on Apostolic Tradition.

1. What canon did they recognize? And of what Church is this canon that you say was recognized?
2. Foundation - source, base. You’re right for this question. “It isn’t the source of all truth.” We also recognize the Bible as an inerrant source of Truth.

 

[RMP]

Matt, When the Apostles died, historically, who would you trust as far as sharing the Gospels to the world truthfully? By Tradition? before the canon?

 

[p90]

2. What canon did they recognize? And of what Church is this canon that you say was recognized?

The recognized different canons at different times, although recognition of the current New Testament canon was generally universal. The church that recognized it was the church that still exists today, the entire body of believers.

~Matt

 

[p90]

RMP:

Matt, When the Apostles died, historically, who would you trust as far as sharing the Gospels to the world truthfully? By Tradition? before the canon?

I honestly don’t know nor do I see how such a question can be answered with much confidence. We don’t have many writings from that time period, let alone the ability to interact with various Christians, to see who would be the most faithful in relating the Gospel to others.

~Matt

 

[Aris]

p90:

The recognized different canons at different times, although recognition of the current New Testament canon was generally universal. The church that recognized it was the church that still exists today, the entire body of believers.

~Matt

That was a good side step. But there was only one Church at that time. The Catholic Church.

And you are correct. It was the Church that still exist today. That can only be the Catholic Church.

And the current New Testament canon was not universal until the Catholic Church declared it so.

There is no sidestepping these facts unless you want to call the Catholic Church by another name.

Again please specify the canons that you speak of that defines the 27 NT books.

 

[Aris]

p90:

I honestly don’t know nor do I see how such a question can be answered with much confidence. We don’t have many writings from that time period, let alone the ability to interact with various Christians, to see who would be the most faithful in relating the Gospel to others.

~Matt

The answer is simple. The Catholic Church. You do have the Early Church Fathers to see how the immediate generation after the Apostles lived their Christian lives.

It can be answered with much confidence since only the Catholic Church can trace the lineage back to the Apostles.

If the early Christians could trust the Catholic Church for four hundred years without the Bible, why can’t modern Christians trust the authority of the Church even when there is the Bible.

When did the Authority of the Church diminish and the authority of the Bible increase? Can we point out that point in time?

It is illogical. Not to mention unhistorical and unbiblical.

 

[p90]

Aris:

There is no sidestepping these facts unless you want to call the Catholic Church by another name.

That church is not to be equated with the Catholic Church of today. It isn’t “sidestepping” if you reject the presupposition that the early church was the same church as the Catholic Church of today.

Again please specify the canons that you speak of that defines the 27 NT books.

The canon I often turn toward in discussions on this subject is in Athanasius’ Festal Letter 39.

~Matt

 

[p90]

Aris:

When did the Authority of the Church diminish and the authority of the Bible increase? Can we point out that point in time?

The written word of God has always been the highest authority. Any general study of the earliest of fathers will reveal this.

~Matt

 

[RMP]

That church is not to be equated with the Catholic Church of today. It isn’t “sidestepping” if you reject the presupposition that the early church was the same church as the Catholic Church of today.

This statement is partly true. After all, Is this country we have today the same as it was 200 years ago? no. Likewise, through the continuation of time the church can never be the same either. (LOOK and feel the same) So why would you demand it to be so? Our beliefs of the church are much like the beliefs of this country. The ideas expressed by this countries founding fathers are still preserved to this day, and these men were fallable. Would you expect less from our FAITH? Which is INFALLABLE. ARE you are saying that political ideas can be easily preserved, but religious ideas cannot? Or you can trust the history of this country but not of our faith? We do have records and history of this church. You say the evidence is sparse, but you produce no evidence at all to support you own idea or theory of the church. I think you should at least consider the evidence the Catholic church claims to have, since it may be the only evidence you will ever find. Speculative ideas of history in no way can replace the ideas written by the Apostolic fathers themselves.

 

[p90]

RMP:

This statement is partly true. After all, Is this country we have today the same as it was 200 years ago? no. Likewise, through the continuation of time the church can never be the same either. (LOOK and feel the same) So why would you demand it to be so?

You’re reading too much into what I wrote. I am rejecting the contention that Catholicism is a legitimate development from the early church.

~Matt

 

[RMP]

I know, but you have no valid aurgument supported by evidence. Your rejection is speculative. That was the point of my previous posts. Also, I only advised you to consider the evidence, since your find none for yourself.

 

[p90]

RMP:

I know, but you have no valid aurgument supported by evidence.

If you knew you were reading too much into my words, why did you respond like that?

That was the point of my previous posts. Also, I only advised you to consider the evidence, since your find none for yourself.

Who said I didn’t have evidence? And what evidence have you provided? I’m not the one making a point here about who to trust to carry on the Gospel when the apostles died. If you’re referring instead to my rejection of Catholicism as a valid development of the early church, there is evidence for that, but a thread on Sola Scriptura isn’t the place to present it.

~Matt

 

[RMP]

Good luck, I leave you in peace. At this point I think our conversation has ended. May you find the answers you are looking for and the courage to defend what you believe.

 

[Aris]

p90:

The canon I often turn toward in discussions on this subject is in Athanasius’ Festal Letter 39.

~Matt

Wasn’t he Catholic? And wasn’t he from the 3rd century? Can’t escape the fact that it was through the Catholic Church you have the Bible right now.

Hey, was he protestant? that means we have to rewrite history?

 

[p90]

Aris:

Wasn’t he Catholic? And wasn’t he from the 3rd century? Can’t escape the fact that it was through the Catholic Church you have the Bible right now.

Hey, was he protestant? that means we have to rewrite history?

I reject your false dichotomy and the premise upon which it is founded. He was neither Catholic nor Protestant, but a member of a church that cannot be fully equated with any institutional organization or movement today.

~Matt

 

[RMP]

LOL. for you to make these accusations is without foudation, proof, or common sense. Read his very own words. They will change your mind.