I truly admire your welcoming sign, I appreciate it. I’m well aware of the idea of a “can of worms” so to speak because I’m familiar with the RCC stance. Most of the apologists here are bound to…one way or another going to repeat the same thing and nothing different. I am like most of everyone else is willing to explore the ECF’s in search of what the Catholic Church Says is in scripture.
"We cannot even begin to use sola scriptura before we have identified what the scriptures are"
I’m sure we can because one would need to have the sacred cannon to begin with.
If one claims to know what the scriptures are then one is making a claim of propositional knowledge, and which could only be revealed by God since we are talking about a supernatural subject, meaning he is making a claim to propositional revelation.
That’s not quite true. Just because I happen to know what is and what’s not scripture doesn’t require me to be God. I’m only following what God has already revealed and using his word to fight against false doctrine.
But if all propositional revelation must be found in the Bible, then the list of the canon must itself be contained in the scriptures. The Protestant apologist must therefore show, from scripture alone, what books belong in the Bible.
I have heard well into this claim, (so being that I’ve debated with other Catholics, mind you) and I’m all familiar with it. There are two things I must say before I give you an answer which is:
-Does the Catholic Church Itself have a replicate copy of the “Golden Table of Contents” from God himself promising to strike down those who do not hold fullness to truth?
-Do the methods differ from Protestant Churches in how they determine scripture? (i.e. allowing scripture to speak for themselves) Did St. Jerome consult the pope to determine what belongs into scripture?
But this is something he cannot do. There is no canon list contained in scripture.
You’re absolutely right! Neither did the Bible fall from the sky onto our laps.
Many books of the Bible (in fact, virtually all of the books of the New Testament) are not quoted by other books of the Bible, much less explicitly quoted “as scripture” (something on which Protestant apologists, as a matter of necessity, are very big).
I must say, Kelly, you’re quite mistaken. Look where Jesus quoted in Matthew 4, how can anyone with such high authority ever bother to quote from the OT? Practically whatever words that come from his mouth are alluded even hinted to the concepts of the OT.
And the Bible gives us no set of tests by which we can infallibly prove which exact books belong in it.
I beg to differ. The Jewish people pretty much tested which books belong and which ones do not without any “divine” tradition needed to understand. Likewise with the NT. In fact, Kelly, I’m 100% positive that the Gospel Writers gave us a clue in how to figure which ones belonged. (i.e. Galatians 1:6-9) If other religioious textbooks like the Quran or the Book of Mormon were tested using this method, their theology falls flat.
The fact is that there is no “inspired contents page” in the Bible to tell us what belongs within its covers.
You’re right but if you’re going to suggest the Pope knows what belongs or the “church” knows, you’re certainly leading into a Mormon’s Path.
Of course the Church has tests she uses to figure out what traditions are apostolic, just as she had tests to establish what scriptures were apostolic.
If you mean by traditions as being “divine” may I ask why Jesus never spoke of this in a positive sentiment (outside the Moses’ Seat example)? Why did Jesus and the disciples make use of scriptures constantly?
One test is whether a given tradition contradicts what has previously been revealed. As anti-Catholics often point out, proposed traditions must be tested against scripture.
That’s because proposed traditions (teachings) aren’t visibly there in any way. So what is there for us to do? Give it a chance and say it’s not man made?
If a proposed tradition contradicts something God has said in scripture (or something said in already known apostolic tradition) then that shows it is merely a tradition of men and may be disregarded. The Church is thus more than happy to test proposed traditions against scripture.
Sure given that the evidences hint and give suggestions to the doctrine. For instance instead of saying that because Enoch and Elijah are bodily assumed into heaven and using their instances to prove the same with Mary, the evidence itself (scripture) should readily say something that actually involved something about Mary.
Where Did the Divine Traditions Go?