QUESTIONS FOR “BIBLE CHRISTIANS”

1.     Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?

There is not a single passage of scripture, in which we find Jesus saying, “The Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book.” However, that is not the point, and the Roman Catholic authorities know that is not the point. The real question is: Did the Lord teach that what all need to know and believe, practice and maintain would be found in His revealed written word? The answer to that question is yes, and we will show you where.

In John — 15, Jesus said to His apostles, “Many things yet I have to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will teach you all the truth. For he will not speak of his own authority, but whatever he will hear he will speak, and the things that are to come he will declare it to you. All things that the Father has are mine.

Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would reveal all the truth to the apostles. Did He do that? Yes. In 1 Cor. 2:12 & 13, Paul wrote, “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit that is from God, that we may know the things that have been given us by God. These things we also speak, not in the words taught by human wisdom, but in the learning of the Spirit, combining spiritual things with spiritual.”

In 1 Cor. 14:37 Paul wrote, “If any one thinks that he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things I am writing to you are the Lord’s commandments.”

In Jude 3 we read, “Beloved, while I was making every endeavor to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you, exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” Again, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would reveal all the truth to the apostles. He did! Paul said he was writing the commandments of the Lord. Near the close of the 1st century, Jude wrote that the faith had been “once for all delivered to the saints.” My friends, if “the faith” has been “once for all deliv­ered,” then anything added after that is not part of the “faith.” This question will be even further answered as we address the other questions.

2.     Where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down?

Friends, a person can honestly and sincerely ask a question, seeking the truth. If he continues to ask it after it has been answered, he is no longer honestly or sincerely seeking the truth. The answer to that question is found in Rev. 1:19, or the Apoca­lypse 1:19, when the glorified Christ said these words to John, “Write therefore the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are to come hereafter.” There is the Lord telling an apostle to write. If the Catholic authorities are to be honest and sincere, they must stop asking that question.

3.     Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based on a book?

The answer to that question is found in the book of 2 Peter. We will begin reading in . Peter wrote, “Therefore I shall begin to remind you always of these things; although indeed you know them and are well established in the present truth. As long as I am in this tabernacle, I think it right to arouse you by a reminder, knowing as I do that the putting off of my tabernacle is at hand, just as our Lord Jesus Christ signified to me. Moreover I will endeavor that even after my death you may often have occasion to call these things to mind. For we were not following fictitious tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we have been eyewitnesses of his grandeur. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when from out of the majestic glory a voice came down to him, speaking thus: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. And this voice we ourselves heard borne from heaven when we were with him on the holy mount. And we have the word of prophecy, surer still, to which you do well to attend, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. This, then, you must understand first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation. -For not by will of man was prophecy brought at any time; but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

Now we move to chapter 3:1 & 2, where Peter wrote, “This. beloved, is now the second epistle that I am writing to you wherein I stir up your pure mind to remembrance, that you may be mindful of what I formerly preached of the words of the holy prophets and of your apostles, which are the precepts of the Lord and Savior.”

Now, how were future generations going to know the “present truth?” How were future generations going to know what Peter had preached, the words of the holy prophets and of the apostles, which were the precepts of the Lord and Savior? That was the reason Peter was writing — so they could know. They would know the words of the holy prophets and of the apostles, the precepts of the Lord and Savior, through the “written word”.

Isn’t the Christian faith based on the words of the holy prophets and apostles, the precepts of the Lord and Savior? In His beautiful prayer in John 17, Jesus prayed in v. 20, “Yet not for these only do I pray, but for those also who through their word are -to believe in me.” It was to His Father that He prayed, while with His apostles, and He spoke of the faith of future generations being based on their word, which “word” Peter had said he was “writing down” so that they could be known in the future after his death. It is time to quit asking that question which their own version of the bible answers so well. 

4.  Protestants claim that Jesus categorically condemned all oral tradition (Mat:. 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8 — 13). If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they “sit on Moses’ seat” (Matt. 23:2)?

The first thing I need to say is I AM NOT A PROTESTANT —I AM A CHRISTIAN, PLAIN AND SIMPLE—SOMETHING THAT EXISTED LONG BEFORE THERE WAS ANY SUCH THING AS PROTESTANTS;

However, the use of Moses’ seat in this question is blatantly misleading and erroneous. To “sit on Moses’ seat” was to teach and bind what Moses actually taught in the Law. Jesus did condemn the man-made traditions that the scribes and Pharisees created. In Matthew 15:1 — 9, the bible says, ‘Then Scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem came to him, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? For they do not wash their hands when they take food. But he answered and said to them, And why do you transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, Let him who curses father and mother be put to death. But you say, Whoever shall say to his father or mother, Any support that thou mightest have had from me is dedicated to God, does not have to honor his father or his mother. So you have made void the commandment of God by your tradition. Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me, and in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the precepts of men.”

Is it possible that the author of these questions did not know the meaning of “to sit on Moses’ seat?” And is it possible that the author did not know of Matthew 15:1-9?

5.  Protestants claim that St. Paul categorically condemned all oral tradition (Col. 2:8). If so, why does he tell the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15) and praises the Corinthians because they “hold firmly to the tradi­tions” (1 Cor. 11:2)?

Again, let me begin by saying that I am not sure what the Protestants claim, for I am not a Protestant. I am simply a Christian as were those who obeyed the Lord in the first century. However, what is condemned in the scriptures are the traditions and the precepts of men — just like all of the church laws that have been imposed by Roman Catholic officials through the centuries and are not found in scripture.

The question should have contained not just 2 Thess. 2:15, but also verse 14 in order to get the true meaning. Paul wrote, “For this purpose he also called you by our preaching to gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm, and hold the teachings that you have learned, whether by word or by letter of ours.” I don’t mean to imply that verse 14 was left out purposely, but it sure does identify those “traditions” or “teachings” that were by word of mouth or by letter, doesn’t it? They were “Paul’s preaching and teaching” — not man’s preaching and teaching.

What does 1 Cor. 11:2 actually say? From the Confraternity Version, we read, “Now I praise you, brethren, because in all things you are mindful of me and hold fast my precepts (or traditions) as I gave them to you.” So, they were those precepts or traditions that Paul gave to them — not some council 600, 700, 1400 or 1962 years later. He said “hold fast my precepts, as I gave them to you.”

6.  If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola Scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God’s Word (Matt. 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 3:19; Jude 9, 14, 15)?

The answer to this question shows the misleading wording of it.   When the authors of the New Testament wrote their books, the revelation was in the process of being completed. When they wrote it down, it became scripture. The Old Testament alone never claimed to be the complete and total, final word of God, but the New Testament does.

7. Where in the bible is God’s Word restricted only to what is written down?

In 2 Tim. 3:16 & 17, Paul wrote, “All scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice; that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work.” My friends, if something equips you for every good work, and can make you complete or perfect, what else is needed?

In 1 Cor. 4:6, Paul wrote, “Now, brethren, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos by way of illustration for your sakes, that in our case you may learn not to be puffed up one against the other over a third party, transgressing what is written.”

8. How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?

The answer to that question is quite simply by scholarship. It is through study that we can determine to whom credit for authorship was given by those who were nearest to being contemporary with the authors themselves. The Roman Catholic Church wants all to believe that the only way we could know is through definitive statements of the Roman Catholic Church. This is simply not so. They also want us to believe that the earliest writers were Roman Catholic — this is so easily disproved so as to not even warrant consideration.

9.  On what authority, or on what principle, would we accept a.~ Scripture books that we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?

The basic factor for accepting as New Testament Scripture any book was inspiration by God and apostolicity. It is important for us to notice a statement found in Eph. 2:19 — 20. Paul wrote, ‘Therefore, you are now no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are citizens with the saints and members of God’s household; you are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus himself as the chief corner stone.” The term “apostolic” when used in this sense does not necessarily mean “apostolic authorship” or “that which was prepared under the direction of the apostles” — it means rather apostolic authority or approval. A prophet was merely one who spoke for God. It did not always, or even primarily, involve foretelling. Not all of the prophets were apostles. Indeed, in Eph. 4:11, Paul wrote, “And he himself gave some men as apostles, and some as prophets, others again as evangelists, and others as pastors and teachers.” Yet it is apparent from such passages as these, that the apostles recog­nized others who spoke for God in the first century. Were the books accepted and read as being apostolically approved by those closest to being their contemporaries?

10. Where in the bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible?

The writers of such questions entirely miss the point. The bible is the infallible list of books that should be in it. It is important to note that no church — in particular the Roman Catholic Church, for they are the ones who makes such claims —gave to or pronounced the books of the bible their infallibility. The Bible owes its authority to no individual or group. The church does not now, and never has, controlled the canon of the scriptures

— the canon controls the church. The authority of the books in the canon was inherent in the books themselves, and the books identify the church rather than the other way around.

Even having said that, when it comes to the Old Testament canon, the New Testament most assuredly sets forth its parame­ters. In Luke 24:44 Jesus said, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled that are written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning me.” The canonical writings of the Old Testament then, according to Jesus, are composed of the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. This is equivalent to the three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures — the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, which, by the way, do not now and never have included the Apocrypha — or the additional books included in the Roman Catholic Old Testament.

But that is not all. In Luke 11:49 — 51, Jesus said, “For this reason also the wisdom of God has said, I will send them prophets and apostles; and some of them they will put to death and persecute, that the blood of all the prophets that has been shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this genera­tion, from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, who was slain between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.” When Jesus said, “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary,” He was referring to the martyrs of the Old Testa­ment. The first martyr of the Old Testament, of course, was Abel and the last martyr was Zechariah (2 Chron. 24:20-2 1). Ii must be kept in mind that the Jewish order of the Old Testament differs from ours, and that Chronicles is placed at the end of the Hebrew Bible. So the Old Testament writings that Jesus knew was a collection of writings reaching from Genesis to Chronicles, with all the other books in between, a collection that embraces the exact same books found in our Old Testament today—a collection that does not include the Apocypha.

11. How do we know, from the bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?

Since this question refers to the New Testament, that is where we will address ourselves. The writers of the New Testament recognized the divine inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures and did not for one moment consider themselves to be in less possession of the Spirit of God than the Old Testament writers. They freely recognized that they have no sufficiency of themselves, but they knew that God had made them sufficient (2 Car. 3:5 & 6). Peter asserted that they were speaking “by the Holy Spirit” in I Pet. 1:12. The New Testament writers issued commands with complete authority, and indeed, made it the test of whether one was truly a child of God or not that he should recognize that what they wrote were the commands of God (1 Cor.14:37).

Now I know that the Catholic writers are asking, “What about the books that do not specifically claim inspiration?” They believe that only the Catholic church had the authority to pronounce such a book inspired. The authority of a book is based upon its inspiration, and that inspiration is not dependent upon the decrees of a church council. The books included in the canon of the New Testament were recognized as belonging in it long before such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church even existed, much less sought to usurp to themselves authority that is inherent in the books.

12. How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the letters of St. Paul, who wrote to first-century congregations and individuals, are meant to be read by us 2000 years later as Scripture?

Remember, my friends, that an honest person can sincerely ask a question seeking to know the truth. But once the answer has been given, that person cannot continue to honestly and sincerely ask the same question. Let’s let this one be laid to rest by turning to 2 Pet. 3:15 & 16, where Peter wrote, “And regard the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation. Just as our most dear brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given him, has written to you, as indeed he did in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things. In these epistles there are certain things difficult to understand, which the unlearned and the unstable distort, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures also, to their own destruction.”

Thus, Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture. In that same book Peter said he was writing so that after his decease, the words of the apostles and prophets, the precepts of the Lord and Savior Jesus could be known and remembered.

13. Where does the bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?

Let us forever lay this one to rest, too. In 2 Tim. 3:16 & 17, Paul wrote, “All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice; that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work.”

Now honestly, if scripture is such as to make man complete —equipped for every good work — what else is needed?

Peter wrote in 2 Peter 1:3, “For indeed his divine power has granted us all things pertaining to life and piety through the knowledge of him who has called us by his own glory and power.” If we have been given “all things pertaining to life and piety through the knowledge of him” then anything given centuries later must have nothing to do with life and piety. The bible claims all sufficiency. You know something, my friends, the Roman Catholic church does not believe that the bible can make the man of God complete, equipped to every good work. Who do you want to believe, the bible or the Roman Catholic Church?

14. Most of the books of the New Testament were written to address very specific problems in the early church, and none of them are a systematic presentation of Christian faith and theol­ogy. On what biblical basis do Protestants think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writ­ings?

First of all, I can’t tell you what Protestants think, for I am not a Protestant and actually know a great deal more about Catholi­cism than I do Protestantism. I am certain that the books of the New Testament do not contain all the things the apostles said and taught, just as the gospels do not contain everything that Jesus said and taught and did. Remember John’s statement in John 20:30 where he wrote, “Many other signs also Jesus worked in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.” But he didn’t stop there, did he? John went on and said, “But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.”

Do you know how much of what the apostles taught is cap­tured in the New Testament writings? Everything necessary, as judged by God to make the man of God perfect, equipped to every good work. That is how much, and anything else is superfluous.

15. If the books of the New Testament are “self-authenticating” through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?

First of all, I am not sure what is meant by the statement “through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual” — I don’t believe that to be true, if I understand it correctly. There have been folks who rejected books of the New Testament because they could not make the particular book fit into their preconceived doctrinal ideas. Martin Luther and his rejection of James comes to mind. Yes, there was some question very early in the church, but I flatly deny that any New Testament book at any time was rejected by the majority. That is not true.

By the middle of the second century, probably no more than 50 years after the death of the final apostle, Justin Martyr wrote in his First Apology: “And on the day called Sunday there is a gathering together to one place of all those who live in cities or in the country, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then when the reader has ceased the president presents admonition and invitation to the imitation of these good things.” So no later than the middle of the second century, the apostles’ letters, as well as the writings of others, were recognized and being widely read at the assemblies of the saints. By the latter half the second century substantial lists of the New Testament books appeared. There was the Muratorian Fragment, containing practically all of the New Testament books, and undoubtedly would have been more complete if it was not a mutilated copy that was found.

lrenaeus, again from the latter part of the second century, attests to the canonicity of most of the books of the New Testa­ment, including 1 Peter and 1 John that were missing from the Muratorian Fragment. Origen in the third century and Eusebius in the fourth century name all of the New Testament books and say that some were questioned, but accepted by the majority.

Each book was gradually accepted, some with more hesitation initially because of questions concerning authorship (such as Hebrews) but very soon each book, on its own inherent authority and with the guiding Providence of God, took its unquestioned place in the accepted canon of the New Testament, long before any council declared it to be such.

16. If the meaning of the bible is so clear, so easily interpreted, and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it rightly, then why are there over 23,000 Protestant denominations, and millions of individual Protestants, all interpreting the bible differ­ently?

That is a ridiculous question. I do not believe, nor does the bible teach, that the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it rightly, and I know of no one who so teaches. If they do, they are wrong. The very wording of this question is disrespectful to God’s word and meant to be prejudicial.

We can understand the scriptures; Paul said so. In Eph. 5:17 we read, “Therefore, do not become foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.” We are also exhorted to study, and to “Use all care to present ourselves to God as a man approved, a worker that cannot be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15We are also specifically told that there are some things difficult to understand—not impossible—and it takes effort and study to know. Peter wrote in 2 Pet. 3:16, “as indeed he did in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things. In these epistles there are certain things difficult to understand, which the un­learned and the unstable distort, just as they do the rest of the scriptures also, to their own destruction.”

Oh yes, my friends, there are going to be those who will wrest the scriptures, distort them, and depart from the faith. Let me give you an example from the Confraternity Version, the version I have been using all along. In 1 Tim. 4:1 — 3, we read, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in after times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of devils, speaking lies hypocritically, and having their conscience branded. They will forbid marriage, and will enjoin abstinence from foods, which God has created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by the faithful and by those who know the truth.”

Does that sound familiar? The Catholic church used to forbid their members to eat meat on Fridays. They still demand it during Lent. And the Catholic church forbids marriage for their clergy.

Their own translation calls such “doctrines of devils.” Is that so hard to understand?

17. Who may authoritatively arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into mutually contradictory interpretations of the bible?

The Holy Spirit does not lead people into mutually contradic­tory interpretations of the bible. A person learns what the bible says by study, by applying himself to the task. To say that the Holy Spirit gave you this interpretation is evidence of that fact that such a person needs to go back and apply himself to the task of study.

The obvious implication of this question is that the Roman Catholic Church is the only one who can authoritatively arbitrate. James wrote in James 4:12, “There is one Lawgiver and Judge, he who is able to destroy and to save.” My friends, that one Lawgiver is not the Roman Catholic Church. In 1 Tim. 2:5 Paul wrote, “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus.” Paul said there is one mediator, and that one Mediator is not the Roman Catholic Church — and by the way, I might mention that it is not Mary either.

The only arbitrator is God’s Word, period. It is “living and efficient and keener than any two-edged sword” (Heb. 4:12). It is “the ingrafted word, which is able to save our souls” (James 1:2 1). When there was a controversy over circumcision and other aspects of the Law of Moses in Acts 15, what did they appeal to? The Word of God. We can do no better.

18. Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpreta­tion is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?

Once again, I am not speaking for Protestants for I am not a Protestant. I am simply a Christian, as were many of the Bereans, and I can determine what is true in the same way they did in Acts 17.       Look at verses 10 — 12 where we read, “But the brethren straightway sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and on their arrival there they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were of a nobler character than those of Thessalonica and they received the word with great eagerness, studying the Scrip­tures every day to see whether these things were so. Many of them became believers, and so did no small number of prominent Gentiles, women and men.”

The only infallible interpreter of scripture, my friends, is scripture. Indeed, all would be much better off if they would simply do away with man-made doctrines and dogmas, creeds, manuals, and catechisms, and “study the Scriptures every day to see whether these things were so.”

19. Protestants usually claim that they all agree “on the impor­tant things.” Who is able to decide authoritatively what is important in the Christian faith and what is not?

I am not a Protestant and I do not say that or believe it. There are many, many instances when people allow man-made doctrines and traditions to overrule what the bible says. The Catholic church is the mother of such an approach to the scriptures. People will often say, “I know what the bible says, but....” And then proceed to give their own preconceived and prejudiced ideas.

There is only one authority that decides what is important in the Christian faith, and (I use the term in an accommodating sense), that one authority is Jesus. His authority for us today is found in the New Testament. In Heb. 1:1 & 2, we read, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all in these days has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world.”

0. How did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350 years₁ without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of the Scrip­ture?

The simple answer to that question is found in such passages as Acts 8:1 —4 and Col. 1:5 & 6, 23. Acts 8:1 —4 says, “Now there broke out on that day a great persecution against the Church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered abroad throughout the landJudea and Samaria. And devout men took care of Stephen’s burial and made great lamentation over him. But Saul was harassing the Church; entering house after house, and dragging out men and women, he committed them to prison. Now those who were scattered abroad went about preaching the word.”

Col. 1:5 & 6 says, “Because of the hope that is laid up for you in heaven. Of that hope you have heard in the word of the gospel truth which has reached you, even as it is in the whole world, both bearing fruit and growing; just as it does among you since the day that you heard and recognized the grace of God in truth.” Verse 23 says, “Only you must remain firmly founded in the faith and steadfast and not withdrawing from the hope of the gospel which you have heard. It has been preached to every creature under heaven; and of it I, Paul, have become a minister.”

The early church spread the word by every member going about teaching it wherever they went. Some additional comments must be made, however, related to the prejudicial and misleading wording of this question. As early as the middle of the second century, the early church was reading the “memoirs of the apostles” and the “writings of the prophets” when they came together. Justin Martyr told us that in his First Apology. By the last half of the second century there were substantial lists of the New Testa­ment books such as the Muratorian Fragment. In the third century, Origen names all of the New Testament books, and Eusebius, who wrote no later than 339 A.D. named all the books of the New Testament. So the early church did know relatively soon which books were inspired and which were not. Again, the church does not control the canon of the scriptures, the canon controls the church. The authority is not derived from the church, but is inherent in the books themselves.

At the same time, the point has already been made that the word of God is, and always has been, the sole source of authority. For a time after the church was established, it was all oral. As time progressed, it was being given both orally and by written word, as the apostles and prophets continued their work (2 Thess. 2:15). Eventually, as the process of revelation was completed and written down, the written word became the only guide and stan­dard of authority.

21. Who in the Church had the authority to determine which books belonged in the New Testament canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians? If nobody has this authority, then can I remove or add books to the canon on my own authority?

Jesus Christ has all authority (Matt. 28:18, Heb. 1:1 & 2). Again, the Roman Catholic Church operates on the false assump­tion that the church has the authority, even over the scriptures, and that the Roman Catholic Church made the determination of which books belonged and which books didn’t. Perhaps this illustration will help. A child identifies its mother, but the mother was responsible for the child, not the other way around. So too the church (and I am speaking of the church that Jesus built, not the apostate Roman Catholic Church), identified the scriptures through the Providential care of God, but the scriptures were responsible for the church, not the other way around. The author­ity is inherent in the books themselves.

22. Why do Protestant scholars recognize the early Church councils at Hippo and Carthage as the first instances in which the New Testament canon was officially ratified, but ignore the fact that those same councils ratified the Old Testament canon used by the Catholic Church today but abandoned by Protestants at the Reformation?

I want to include the next question here as well because the two go together, and the wording of the second question is so blatantly false and prejudicial that it breaks my heart to think that it is being spread among so many who know so little. The second question is:

23. Why do Protestants follow post-apostolic Jewish decisions on the boundaries of the Old Testament Canon (after the destruction of Jerusalem, rather than the decision of the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

First of all, I am not a Protestant, and I do not recognize the council at Hippo of 393 or the council at Carthage of 397 as officially ratifying anything. They had no authority whatsoever. We have already presented ample evidence that long before those man-made councils the 27 books of the New Testament were recognized by Christians and being used. This question refers to the council of Hippo and Carthage because of the Apocrypha, and that is the only reason.

Here are several reasons for rejecting outright as uninspired and non-canonical the books of the Apocrypha:

Jesus never accepted any of the apocryphal books as being inspired and belonging in the Old Testament — never. He set the parameters in Luke 24:44 when He spoke of the Law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms. This is a threefold division exactly equivalent to the Hebrew Scriptures — the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings — that contains none of the apocrypha. In Luke 11:49— 51, Jesus said, “From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias,” referring to the martyrs of the Old Testament. The first martyr of the Old Testament was Abel and the last was Zechariah. Zechariah’s death appears in 2 Chron. 24:20 & 21. In the Jewish order of the Old Testament, containing exactly the same books as the King James Version, Chronicles is placed at the end. So Jesus recognized the Old Testament books from Genesis to Chronicles, which in the Hebrew order is exactly the same books found in our Old Testament today. It does not do any good for the Catholic church to argue about the canon of the Alexan­drian Jew. The question is, what books did Jesus accept? What books did the Jews of Jesus’ day accept? I will accept the EXACT SAME CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT THAT JESUS ACCEPTED.

Indeed, my friends, I accept the canon of the Old Testament scriptures because the founder and the builder of the church to which I belong, the church of Christ, accepted the same one. The wording of that second question is so misleading as to be ungodly. The Roman Catholic officials know what canon Jesus accepted, that is why they argue about the Alexandrian Jews canon. The Lord Jesus Christ did not accept the apocryphal books as canoni­cal.

By the way, even the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, p. 270, says, “The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546.”

Interestingly enough, Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate which has served as the basis for all Roman Catholic Translations, did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament canon. He did not initially translate them; later he did. And he never accepted them as inspired. Do you know what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about Jerome in Vol. 8, p. 341? It says, “To sum up, the Biblical knowledge of St. Jerome makes him rank first among ancient exegetes.” It then goes on and tries to argue away the fact that Jerome did not accept the apocryphal books as Scripture.

osephus, the Jewish historian of A.D. 30 — 100, explicitly excluded the Apocryphal books when numbering the Old Testa­ment.

There was not even unanimity among Roman Catholic schol­ars through the Reformation relating to the Apocrypha. Many of them rejected it.

24. How were the bishops at Hippo and Carthage able to determine the correct canon of the Scripture in spite of the fact that they believed all the distinctively Catholic doctrines such as the apostolic succession of bishops, the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, etc.?

Again, the bishops at Hippo and Carthage did not determine the correct canon of scripture, and that truth has been amply demonstrated. These groups had no authority whatsoever, and even among these who had left the simple truth of the gospel for their man-made doctrines and laws, there did not exist a unanimity of belief. Many of these peculiarly Catholic doctrines mentioned in the question were still in the process of being created and many peculiarly and distinctly Catholic doctrines had not even been thought of by 393. Still to come was the exaltation of Mary, the doctrine of Purgatory, the college of Cardinals, not eating meat on Fridays’, auricular confession, the immaculate conception, infalli­bility of the Pope (not decreed until 1870), and oh, so many more! Isn’t it interesting that so many of the doctrines taught by Catholi­cism and said to have been true since the time of Christ, were nowhere to be found in 393 A.D.?

25. If Christianity is a “book religion” how did it flourish during the first 1500 years of Church history when the vast majority of people were illiterate?

When you sit and think about this question for a little while, it becomes apparent how silly and misleading a question it is. There have always been, just as there is now, many people who cannot read — but how does that discredit the bible as the only authority in religion and how does that indicate that the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, or the teaching Magisterium, or the Pope are equal in authority to the revealed word?

How could someone become a Catholic if he couldn’t read? How could someone come to believe the peculiarly Catholic doctrines? Wouldn’t a priest or someone have to teach them verbally what was written in their books? That is exactly how the bible is given to someone who can’t read. They are taught the Word of the Lord verbally — but it is His word that is in the bible. That is what the scriptures teach. In Rom. 10:17 we find, “Faith then depends on hearing, and hearing on the word of Christ.” Whether we read them or hear them, salvation depends the words of Christ — not the words of Roman Catholic authorities. Remem­ber Paul’s words from 1 Cor. 14:37, “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things I am writing to you are the Lord’s commandments.”

26. How could the Apostle Thomas establish the church in India that survives to this day (and is now in communion with the Catholic Church) without leaving them with one word of New Testament Scripture?

It would be good if the authors or author of these letters simply stuck to what is admitted to be known by even Roman Catholic authorities when talking about an Apostle. This question ignores the facts and causes me to wonder either about the scholarship or the integrity of the questioner. From the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 14, pgs. 658 & 659, we read, “Little is recorded of St. Thomas the Apostle, nevertheless thanks to the fourth Gospel his personality is clearer to us than that of some others of the Twelve.”

Do you want to know where the statements in the question concerning Thomas came from, my friends? Remember now, I am quoting from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Skipping down it says, “This exhausts all our certain knowl­edge regarding the Apostle but his name is the starting-point of considerable apocryphal literature, and there are also certain his­torical data which suggest that some of this apocryphal material may contain germs of truth. The principal document concerning him is the “Acts Thomae,” preserved to us with some variations both in Greek and in Syriac, and bearing the unmistakable signs of its Gnostic origin... The story in many of its particulars is utterly extravagant… The extravagance of the legend may be judged from the fact that in more than one place it represents Thomas as the twin brother of Jesus... The story itself runs briefly as follows: At the division of the Apostles, India fell to the lot of Thomas, but he declared his inability to go, whereupon his Master Jesus appeared in a supernatural way to Abban, the envoy of Gundafor, an Indian king, and sold Thomas to him to be his slave and to serve Gundafor as a carpenter. Then Abban and Thomas sailed away until they came to Andrapolis, where they landed and attended the marriage feast of the ruler’s daughter. Strange occurrences fol­lowed and Christ, under the appearance of Thomas, exhorted the bride to remain a virgin. Coming to India Thomas undertook to build a palace for Gundafor, but spent the money entrusted to him on the poor. Gundafor imprisoned him, but the Apostle escaped miraculously and Gundafor was converted. Going about the country to preach, Thomas met with strange adventures from dragons and wild asses.

I wonder why the author or authors of this question didn’t include in it what the primary source about Thomas the Apostle in India actually says. Why didn’t they include in the question that the primary source of the material concerning Thomas in India also says that he was a twin of Jesus? Why didn’t they include that in the primary source of such information, Jesus is said to have appeared miraculously to an envoy of an Indian king and that Jesus sold Thomas into slavery? Why didn’t they include that Jesus appeared to a bride as Thomas, and asked a bride to remain a virgin? Why didn’t they include that Thomas had many strange adventures with dragons and wild asses? The quotes, my friends, are from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

But that is not all. The Catholic Encyclopedia also says, “Certain it is also that on the Malabar or west coast of southern India a body of Christians still exists using a form of Syriac for its liturgical language. Whether this Church dates from the time of St. Thomas the Apostle, or whether the Gospel was first preached there in 345 owing to the Persian persecution under Sapor, or whether the Syrian missionaries who accompanied a certain Thomas of Cana penetrated to the Malabar coast about the year 745 seems difficult to determine.”

Now, either the scholarship of the author or authors of this question is decidedly lacking, or they knew the truth about the matter and tried to mislead people with the wording of their question. I hope that their scholarship was lacking.

27. If sola Scriptura is so solid and biblically based, why has there never been a full treatise written in its defense since the phrase was coined in the Reformation?

My friends, the greatest treatise ever written in defense of the bible as the sole source of authority in religion for today is the New Testament, but the Roman Catholic Church chooses to ignore the fact that it says it contains “the commandments of the Lord,” “all things pertaining to life and piety,” and the “perfect law of liberty.” It says it contains all that is necessary “that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work” and that the faith was “once for all delivered to the saints.” The question really is, “Why doesn’t the Roman Catholic Church believe the statements found in the greatest treatise ever written, not only in defense of the bible as the sole source of authority, but also in the presentation of the good news of the gospel?”

28. If God intended for Christianity to be exclusively a “religion of the book,” why did He wait 1400 years before showing some­body how to build a printing press? Why did he make a religion of a book if the illiteracy rate would be 90% throughout most of history?

In truth, we have already answered this simple question, but we will do it again. The question implies that the scriptures were absolutely unavailable to the people. Well, the scriptures them­selves certainly show that people in the time of the Lord had access to the Old Testament scriptures. Such passages as Acts 15:21, “For Moses for generations past has had his preachers in every city in the synagogues, where he is read aloud every Sab­bath.” In 2 Tim. 3:15, Paul wrote to Timothy, “And from thy infancy thou hast known the Sacred Writings, which are able to instruct thee unto salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” And in Acts 8:27 — 28, we find, “And he arose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of Candace, queen of Ethiopia, who was in charge of all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, sitting in his carriage and reading the prophet Isaiah.”

Even in ancient times, while everybody did not have a copy of the Scriptures, those who were seeking to know God’s will had access to them. Even in faraway places the synagogues had the scriptures, and even some individuals, such as the eunuch, had copies they carried with them. We have already seen that by the middle of the second century the writings of the “apostles” and the “prophets” were being read at the assemblies of the Lord’s church. Those who really wanted to know had access to them.

I wonder if the author or authors of this question, or the Roman Catholic authorities of today, would admit that at one time the Bible was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia in 1229, with the following decree, “We prohibit also the permitting of the laity to have the books of the Old and New Testament, unless any one should wish, from a feeling of devo­tion, to have a psalter or breviary for divine service, or the hours of the blessed Mary. But we strictly forbid them to have the above mentioned books in the vulgar tongue.”

There are many other places we could go to show that one of the greatest obstacles to having the bible in the hands of all people in a language they could understand was the Roman Catholic Church.

29. If the early Church believed in sola Scriptura, why do the creeds of the early Church always say “we believe in the Holy Catholic Church” and not “we believe in the Bible alone?”

The earliest creeds appeared almost 300 years after the estab­lishment of the church and well over 200 years after the comple­tion of the written revelation. They were extra biblical, and in so much that they contained less than the bible, they contained too little. If they contained more than the bible, they contained too much. And if they contained just what is in the bible, then they were superfluous.

This is once again a question asked that makes me wonder about the scholarship of the authors of it or their integrity. To ask why statements that began to appear in the 300’s didn’t contain the statement “we believe in the Bible alone” is to either not know that the term “bible” did not come into general usage for the whole scriptures until the 5th century — in which case their scholarship is poor. Or it is to know that to be the truth and to be asking the question merely to cloud the issue.