Catholic Challenge # 8

 Here we are again making to the second to last argument that "Ed" has made against Sola Scriptura. As a reminder, "Ed" challenged me with these arguments on Facebook. You can have really good discussions/debates/ect on Facebook, but it can be a difficult medium to have deep conversations on. So instead of answering his objections there, I felt that a blog was the better medium to answer his challenges. As usual, text from "Ed" are in red and texts from the Scriptures are in blue.

8.  So it was Sacred Tradition that preceded Sacred Scripture.  Only an infallible sacred tradition can declare an inerrant and inspired NT scripture canon.

This point needs to be untangled in order to address it properly. There are built-in assumptions throughout the entire point.

"So it was Sacred Tradition that preceded Sacred Scripture." Where did you get "Sacred Tradition" from? It certainly wasn't in the previous seven points that were made. When looking at the last seven points that "Ed" made, "Sacred Tradition" isn't even mentioned once, let alone proven. This is an assumption that has been made and must be demonstrated in order to be believed. 

If "Ed" isn't aware, Protestants have traditions as well. Tradition itself isn't a bad word. Sadly, many Roman Catholics read the word "tradition" and import their own understanding into it. Often times, Roman Catholics see Protestants following a tradition and immediately use that as a means to justify their own version of "tradition," namely "Sacred Tradition." There can be traditions, but they must be held accountable to the Word of God, which is the Bible.

"Only an infallible sacred tradition can declare an inerrant and inspired NT scripture canon." This is nonsense and here's why. The inspired text is inspired by someone, but that someone isn't a man. Biblical inspiration didn't happen by the will of man, but by the will of God Himself. The only thing that man can do is recognize the inspired canon. None of the men at the Councils of Rome, Hippo, or Carthage are reported as saying that they are capable of making infallible declarations concerning the canon.

The truth of the matter is that the canon is the canon because God made it so. Technically speaking, both Roman Catholics and Protestants should agree on that point. Our real issue is how does mankind recognize the infallible Word of God?

There are many ways that man can recognize what the canon itself is. Yes, we can look at "tradition" and see what God's people have valued and passed on to later generations, there's no question about that. But we also can look at what the original language was for a particular text, we can see how widespread a text was or where the text originated, we can also look at what early opponents of the faith said that believers recognized as Scripture. 

Tradition itself is fine, there's nothing wrong with following traditions as long as they are held subject to the Bible. There is no need for a "Sacred Tradition" that is infallible for us to understand what the canon is. To believe that we need man to determine what the canon is, is to place man above the Scriptures themselves. All have sinned, and no man is the author of the Word of God. Only God Himself determines what the canon is.

Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God? Mark 12:24

Catholic Challenge # 7

 Finally, "Ed" presents an interesting challenge in his seventh point. This is the seventh challenge of nine that has been charged against Sola Scriptura from him. Today, we are looking at a challenge against SS from church history, a topic that I love. It's quite enjoyable to go through the many different articles and arguments that people make about today's point, which is an argument concerning the canon of the Scriptures. As always, texts from "Ed" are in red while the Scriptures are in blue.

7. The canon of scripture wasn’t settled until 382 AD and further ratified in 392 and 397. All were at catholic councils.

This point needs to be broken up a bit in order to respond to it properly. The reason for this is because this point is actually making at least four separate points at once. 

"The canon of scripture wasn’t settled until 382 AD" is the first point that we must address. This point appears to be vague if people aren't aware of what "Ed" is referring to here. It's entirely possible that he was vague on purpose to trip up people who are unaware of church history and the history of the formation of the Bible. Undoubtedly "Ed" is referring to the Council of Rome held in 382AD. Here is a list of the books viewed as canonical from the Council of Rome given by Dr. Taylor Marshall:

https://taylormarshall.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html

Dr. Marshall is a bias Roman Catholic as can be seen by his mishandling of Luther's view of the canon (a different topic that we can address at a later date if need be). However, the list of the books that are viewed as canonical by the Council of Rome as given to us by Dr. Marshall are the same as the modern Roman Catholic canon. But even with that, there is an issue. What is the primary source of the canon list from the Council of Rome (382AD)? 

That would be the Decretum Gelasianum, which was probably written in the early sixth century AD. It apparently reflects Roman tradition, and parts of the Decretum Gelasianum may date back to the time of Damasus, bishop of Rome 366-384AD. But that's the problem, we don't have first hand documents of the council. So even though the list that has been given to us from the Decretum Gelasianum is the same list given at the Council of Rome, we don't know if this is what the council agreed upon for sure. But I am willing to give this as an example of an early list that matches the Roman Catholic canon for the sake of argument. Here is the list as given by the Decretum Gelasianum:

Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon [i.e. Chronicles] two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus [i.e. Sirach] one book.

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Amos one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books [i.e. Ezra & Nehemiah], Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.

The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.

Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealot, the Apostle one epistle.

"and further ratified in 392" This next part of his argument would be confusing to someone who is unaware of what "Ed" is talking about. I believe that "Ed" is referencing the Council of Hippo in 393, not 392. It appears that this is a typo by "Ed" but it just adds to the mess of his arguments. From what I can find, the canon that the Council of Hippo promulgated was confirmed by the Council of Carthage. 

"and 397" This is a reference to the Council of Carthage in 397, which was technically the third council convened there. But not much is known about what happened at that council. What is our primary source for what took place in Carthage? That would be the Codex Canonum Ecclesiæ Africanæ which was compiled in 419AD. This is the list provided by the Codex:

It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John.

The interesting thing about the councils of Hippo and Carthage is the absence of the book of Baruch. All of the other books of the Apocrypha are admittedly there, but not Baruch. The canon given by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage actually do have a difference with the modern Roman Catholic canon then. I would be interested in a response to that. Especially considering how much Jerome was against the book of Baruch.

"All were at catholic councils." I would actually disagree, but there can be different definitions of the word "catholic." If you are saying "catholic" as in the definition that Ignatius gave "according to the whole," then I would still disagree. These three councils listed by "Ed" were regional councils and the latter two were heavily influenced by Augustine. Augustine did argue in favor of the Apocrypha in his discussions with Jerome, but that is a story for a different day. These councils weren't according to the whole but were held by local churches, and even by Roman Catholic standards these three councils weren't ecumenical councils. They only pertained to their local areas.

The real debate however comes when someone's understanding of the word "catholic" as being the same thing as the Roman Catholic Church. I recognize that I disagree with many here, but I don't believe that these councils were Roman Catholic councils. Yes, the councils were held in the West, and they were under the jurisdiction of the Roman See, but even that isn't enough to demonstrate that these were Roman Catholic councils. One would have to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that these men believed in the Papacy, Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Assumption of Mary, Purgatory and the Treasury of Merit, among many other dogmas and doctrines that is definitional of modern Roman Catholicism's understanding of what the Gospel is. It is clear to me that these men did not believe any of this, and therefore modern Roman Catholicism is a different religion then what these men practiced.

Finally, the last point that I would like to make is that "Ed" is incorrect even by Roman Catholic standards. When "Ed" states: "The canon of scripture wasn’t settled until 382" this isn't even accepted by Roman Catholicism. The infallible definition of the canon of Scriptures had to wait for centuries after what"Ed" claimed. It wasn't until April 8, 1546 during the Council of Trent in the fourth Session that defined "infallibly" what the content of the canon of the Scriptures were, and therefore "settled" the canon of the Scriptures. There are many problems with the Council of Trent too, but it isn't necessary to explore them here.

The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Acts 17:10‭-‬11

Catholic Challenge # 6

 I feel like I'm starting to make progress. Today my blog will be looking at the sixth point of nine given by "Ed" against Sola Scriptura. It is totally possible to have a good conversation with people that you disagree with, but "Ed" is not one of them. However, if he believes that his arguments are compelling, then I believe it is worthwhile to respond to his challenges. As always, text from "Ed" is in red, while the Scriptures are in blue.

6. Only a few could even read. The printing press wasn’t invented until 1436. 

According to this source: https://www.britannica.com/technology/printing-press the first time that we find the printing press in history is 1439. However, it also appears that Gutenberg began designing the printing press in 1436, not invented. The printing press was built during the 1440s and didn't start being used for commercial use until 1454. The first book printed by him was the Bible around 1455, but no earlier than 1454. See this source: http://scarc.library.oregonstate.edu/omeka/exhibits/show/mcdonald/incunabula/gutenberg/

Regardless, one can see where "Ed" is going with this point. If God endorses Sola Scriptura, then why are so many people illiterate? If we are to have the written Word of God as our only infallible rule of faith, then what do we make of all the people who can't read? Wouldn't God make it mandatory that people be able to read first? Therefore, SS cannot be true.

First of all, in order to understand the Word of God for ourselves, it is important, but not necessary, that one know how to read. The interesting thing about language is though is that so many times in history we find language to be quite fluid. Yet, once there is a great piece of literature introduced into a language (such as the Bible), the language freezes, or slows down. In fact, we have seen many times where the Bible became the standard of a language. The King James version for instance became the standard form of early modern English for the English language. It is the Word of God in fact that often times propells people to strive to be able to read.

Secondly, SS does not demand in any way shape or form that in order to have salvation, one must be able to read. There is no basis for this thought whatsoever. The Word of God can be preached to anyone, whether they are illiterate or blind or anything else. A true believer will have Christ in his heart, regardless of his capabilities.

So far, these points that "Ed" has been making are incredibly week. It would surprise me if these arguments have persuaded anyone to swim the Tiber to Rome, especially if they were educated in these issues at all. If I was a defender of Rome, I would be embarrassed by the shallow thinking of these points. There is no doubt that people have their arguments against SS that are interesting, but these last six points have not been compelling.

Jesus said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, This became the chief corner stone; This came about from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

Matthew 21:42

Catholic Challenge # 5

 It can be intimidating to face someone when they give you a list of issues to work through. With my interactions with "Ed" on Facebook, it's clear to me that this is strategic. He intended for his list to be big and daunting in order to dissuade me from responding to him, especially in any meaningful fashion. But, I do believe that "Ed" is in error, and that people should know that there are people who will stand up and defend the truth of Sola Scriptura. Today I will continue my examination and response to his charges against SS. This is his fifth point and as always, the text by "Ed" are in red and the Scriptures are in blue.

5.  Those letters and books were read during the liturgy (the mass).

One of the major problems that "Ed" and other defenders of Rome like him, is that they take way too much for granted. The whole premise of this question is misleading and assumes too much, and this must be noted before anything is addressed. The point of contention between Roman Catholics and Protestants is not that the early church didn't see the Scriptures as important. What the point of contention is is the many theological claims that Rome throws out there without any defense.

You see, Rome makes declarations, and then explains that these declarations are true by saying something like: 

4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the Lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the Apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

Pastor Aeternus Ch 1.4

Pastor Aeternus is the document that declared and defined the Roman Catholic dogma of Papal Infallibility. This is probably one of the clearest examples of a Roman Catholic dogma that doesn't have any basis in the Bible, history, or tradition of any sort. The document provides a few citations to validate its argument, such as in chapter 3.5 and 4.2. There is also a vague reference to Matthew 16 in chapter 1.2 and 4.2, as well as a couple other Biblical references that have absolutely nothing to do with Papal Infallibility. The only way that Papal Infallibility can come to mind from the quotes and passages given in Pastor Aeternus is by utilizing eisegesis. 

Pastor Aeternus is a poor defense of Papal Infallibility that leaves it up to the layman to substantiate its own claims. "Ed" is also utilizing a similar technique. Make a bunch of claims that don't really mean anything and then says that Sola Scriptura is wrong. Just because different churches read from the Scriptures all throughout history doesn't even come close to being a good point against SS. 

Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.

Psalms 119:105

Catholic Challenge # 4

 This is a continuation of a series of challenges that I am responding to that is supposed to demonstrate how wrong Sola Scriptura is. The point of my response to "Ed" (from Facebook) on this blog is to provide believers with a practical response, and also to provide Roman Catholics and unbelievers with an answer to their challenges. As usual, texts from "Ed" are in red and verses from the Bible are in blue.

4. There was no printing press to distribute copies of the individual letters and books.

It truly is amazing that this is viewed as a persuasive argument to people. Has this argument actually been effective in persuading people to Rome? I've never seen a definition of Sola Scriptura from someone who subscribes to SS that has as part of its definition that there either must be a printing press in order to be correct, or that every single believer must own at least one complete copy of the Bible. What confession or catechism can be provided to substantiate such an argument or appeal?

Now a response might be something to the effect of, yes, but, we need someone to say the Word of God to believers and therefore that is an example of the spoken Word (i.e. "Tradition"). This cannot be supported however due to the fact that if somebody tells me what the Bible says, even if I had never read the Bible before, someone is still giving me what the Bible teaches. Therefore, the person ignorant of the Bible, is still being given the Word of God from the Bible. This is completely in line with SS.

The next logical direction in the conversation would be the discussion of the difference between the Formal Sufficiency and Material Sufficiency of the Scriptures. I'm not going to get into that here, but I can discuss it if needed. For now, I would direct people to TurretinFan's blog: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/?m=1 There are a number of tags that you can click on and Formal Sufficiency is one of them. He has many good articles on that subject.

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

2 Timothy 2:15 

Catholic Challenge # 3

Today I'm going to continue looking at some points that "Ed" challenged me with on Facebook. This is point number three out of nine points that he made where he is challenging Sola Scriptura and attempting to demonstrate that SS is a false doctrine. I will be examining these points one by one to expose false narratives similar to these. Words from "Ed" are in red while words from the Scriptures are in blue.

3.  It took from 45-90 AD for all books to be written.

This is probably true give or take, but I still must stress that we don't know that for a fact. One of the main criteria to determine when a book of the New Testament was written is if it seems to be aware of certain historical events such as the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD or if it's aware of the death of an apostle. We really don't have much to work with because even at times, there is debate on whether or not we know who the author of a book is.

Regardless, this point isn't a compelling point at all. For Protestants who have not only studied the Scriptures, but also the background of the Scriptures, this bit of information isn't a surprise at all. In fact, most of these points seem to be trying to educate people who know next to nothing about the Scriptures. But if we take just a little bit of time to dig below the surface, arguments like these won't effect you.

False religions and their followers often prey on ignorant people. The problem is that we can't have exhaustive knowledge on everything, so how do we face a religion that we don't know? The most important thing that a Christian can do, is read the Word of God. In this day and age, we have access to so much. The amount of information we have would have been mind blowing to people throughout the middle ages and the Reformation.

Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven.

Psalms 119:89

Catholic Challenge # 2

In my last blog post I began reviewing a list of points made by a man on Facebook. As I had said before, "Ed" continually would attack Protestantism by using popular Roman Catholic tropes. When these wouldn't work, he just moved on to the next point. If that wasn't bad enough, he did bring back at least one of the erroneous tropes to attack me with again. After that, he gave me a list of points that is supposed to demonstrate that Sola Scriptura is false. Today I will be looking at the second point that he made. Words by "Ed" are in red and words from the Scriptures are in blue.

2. The first NT books written were 17-20 years after the resurrection.

This point is basically a sub point from point number one. However, there are some things that should be noted. The first thing is that we don't know when exactly any of the books of the Bible were written. We can make educated guesses for when we believe any particular book was written, but we still don't know for sure. It's not like the authors dated their books.

Something that is very popular right now is the theory that the Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel written. The understanding of this is that the Synoptic Gospels are so similar to each other that there must be a written source that they all came from. Some people even believe that there is an unknown source of the Gospels which is labeled the "Q" source (coming from the German word "Quelle", which means "source" in English). I don't believe in the "Q" source. The problem with all of this dating though is that we just don't know.

There are plenty of good arguments as to why Mark was the first Gospel written, and while it is the popular opinion, it is not the sole opinion. Other arguments have been made as to why Matthew was the first, and even some believing that Luke was the first. But even if Mark is the first Gospel written, we don't know when it was written. Maybe it was written just after the Resurrection, it could have been.

The opposite is also possible. Maybe the first NT writing was decades later, even beyond the 17-20 year window that "Ed" believes in. My point is is that "Ed" is prone to making a lot of assumptions. Just because the first NT writing MIGHT have been written down 17-20 years later, it doesn't follow that Sola Scriptura is false and Roman Catholicism is true. 

If it's true that the first NT writing was about 17-20 years after the Resurrection, that has no effect on Sola Scriptura. The Apostles were first hand eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus Christ. They didn't rely on their own authority either. In fact, believers who tested the words of the Apostles were praised, and followers were encouraged to test everything by the Scriptures.

The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.

Acts 17:10‭-‬12

As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Galatians 1:9 NASB1995