Writer,
It is clear to me you have no answer to my questions. Obviously you cannot find one verse in scripture that teaches sola scriptura. This is important because in order for you to say that scripture alone is the sole infallible source for all Chrsitian doctrine then you must be able to prove this by scripture itself, you cannot go to outside sources. And you cannot do this. So i am waiting for the one verse in the "sole source(Bible)" for all Christians that says that "Scripture Alone is the only source for christians in reguards to doctrine and nothning else is given or to be used". Until you can quote me a verse from the bible that teaches that, then your position on sola scriptura refutes itself. You say that you know that the new testament canon is from matthew-revelation. How do you know that? The earliest christians had no clue what made up the entire new testament until 382 A.d. at the council of Rome. Up until then they(the early christians agreed on some of the books of the new testament(like the Gospels) but dissagreed with others. for example in the years 190 the earliest canon we can find called the mutorian canon accepted the Gospels but rejected Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 2nd Peter. This canon also accepted a book called the apocalypse of Peter, which no one adheres to today. Even as late as the 325 ad. these biblical books of James, Hebrews, and Peter and Revelation were still being disputed. Not all Christians beleived them to be truely inspired. While others such as the Epsitle to Clement or the shepherd of hermas were being treated as scripture in certain areas. It wasn't until a Catholic council(382 Council at Rome) under a Catholic Pope(Damasus I) utilizing Catholic apostolic tradition(seeing which books were in line with what was taught orally and handed down to each generation) to determine what this canon was and officially promulgate it. this decision was recognized and ratified in many other Catholic councils such as Hippo(393) and Carthage(397). All Christians, protestants and all groups such as the LDS when they rely on the authority of the new testament canon are really relying on the authority of Catholic Papal decrees and councils. Thus there are picking fruit from a tree they didn't plant. This is important becuase if the protestant says he is not, then he has to go back and read all the other books which were claiming to be scripture, such as the Epsitle of barnabus or the Shepherd of hermas etc. and decide for himself if it is scripture or not. If he does not do this then he relies on Romes Authority and thus nullfies the Sola Scriptura position by relying on a outside Catholic source to give him this revelation of the Canon(Which all Protestants and LDS do). Also, if the bible alone is our only source for revelation and true doctrine, then the bible itself should give us a list of all the books that would be in the bible? What book of the bible has this inspired table of contents? Does Romans say what books belong to the canon? does Galatians? Does Revelation itself say? NO one book in the bible has a gives us a inspired table of contents of what books belong in the bible. Remember the beginning table of contents in your bible is not inspired itself becuase it was not written by a apostle. In order for you to know what the new testament books are then Jesus or Paul or Peter or John would have to have written a inspired table of contents in one of thier books. But they didn't. And even if they would have, how would we know that that book itself is inspired? Simple, we need a outside source to tell us what the New testament Canon is. That source was historically the Catholic Church and its Popes and councils and traditions. No way of getting around it. Thus the sola scriptura theory goes into the waste basket You seemed to think that St Athansius taught sola scriptura. He did not. He taught what the Catholic church teaches. He taught material sufficieny of scripture, NOT sole suffciancy! By the way he was Catholic and a defender of the Catholic church and a Bishop. If you read his other writings agaisnt heresie you will see he also beleives in the Tradition of the fathers and the Catholic church.
For example "In A.D. 359 he says "but what is also to the point, let us note that the very Tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and preserved by the fathers. On this the church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian". So wow, doesn't sound like hes a sola scriptura guy to me? Oh, by the way according to him you wouldn't be considered a Christian becuase your not Catholic or in line with Church and tradition. Hmmmmm I say you should sudy history first and then see what you come up with. Ohhhh still waiting for that one verse in scripture that says that "Only scripture alone is the sole source for a Chrsitian"????? God bless
