A. Who DECIDED that the Bible would become the sole and infallible rule of faith, and when???
B. If it was the Apostles who decided this just after they finished writing the last word of the last written book of the New Testament, why didn’t they ADD a teeny tiny little phrase to that last book that said “Here you go, Christians–the sole and infallible rule of faith for all time–it’s all yours.” Even if it wasn’t part of the inspired text, this presumed apostolic decision was at least as newsworthy as the Council of Jerusalem, and that got written about. …
The reason why no one would ever add a little verse that says the Bible is the sole rule of faith is because the Bible is not really the sole rule of faith. I believe that God continues to speak to people even to this day, through things such as prophecy. Scripture is a rule of faith because it was inspired by God, and anything else that comes from God is a rule of faith too.
However, the Bible is the only PRACTICAL rule of faith. It is the only practical rule of faith because it is the only thing we know comes from God. How do you know that Church Tradition is in fact accurate? The Bible has thousands of early copies to verify that what we read is what was originally written. How do you know that Church Tradition has indeed been preserved? How do you know that the Traditions you are taught today are the same thing that were taught by the apostles. The very simple fact of the matter is that you can’t. The entire basis of oral tradition is that it is oral - there is no written record, and therefore no way to verify how accurate it is. I will listen to God’s Word no matter where it comes from, just so long as I know it comes from God. Church Tradition is completely lacking in any way to verify this. You wouldn’t believe me if I claimed to speak for God, not unless I proved it. So why do you believe Tradition, when it has no way to prove it?
C. Why does the written “sole and infallible rule of faith” keep telling believers to believe apostolic preaching in both written AND oral form?? Confusing at best if the work is designed to guide Christians for the rest of time…
Contrary to popular opinion, no where in the Bible did the Apostles ever claim that Tradition would be infallibly protected (really, it isn’t claimed, and I invite anyone to try to prove otherwise). The Apostles told people to believe what they taught and what they wrote because God was speaking through the Apostles - the things they taught and the things they wrote came straight from God. The problem, as I have been saying, is that in order to continue to believe those things, we must know what was written/said. In the case of their writings, we KNOW that what we read is what they said. In the case of oral traditions, we only have the assurances of Tradition that the Traditions they teach are what the apostles taught. There is no way to verify it, making it very untrustworthy. With all the people who claim to speak for God but don’t (mormons, JWs, islam, krishan, etc…) it is foolish to believe anyone who claims to speak for God unless they can demonstrate it beyond a reasonable doubt. Guilty until proven innocent is the only way to deal with people who claim to speak for God.
D. In order for Scripture to have become the sole and infallible rule of faith at some point in time, it would have required an external infallible source of authority to designate it as such. Where is the historical or Scriptural evidence that this external authority has ceased to exist in the Church today and has been replaced by the Bible?
Again, scripture isn’t the sole and infallible rule of faith, it is simply the only practical one. Time made it so, because oral tradition becomes untrustworthy after about 1 generation, leaving only written testimony.
E. Given the fact that the Canon of Scripture was not firmly decided by the Church until about 200 years after the presumed death of the last Apostle, how did that external infallible authority survive for all those years after the Apostles were already gone???
This is in my opinion a re-writing of history by many Catholic apologists. It was commonly known well before any church councils which books were and were not authoritative. The church councils simply put their stamp of approval on a largely existing canon to stop people from adding more. I would recommend you read this: