Sola Scriptura: Christian Doctrine, or Man Made Heresy? A Catholic vs. Protestant Debate on the Bible and the Early Church

Jun 12

This is a very thorough and extensive debate. I have done my absolute best to format it in such a way that allows for a smooth reading. A lot of important ground is covered in this exchange. We go through Biblical data as well as historical data to examine whether or not Sola Scriptura is a Christian teaching revealed by Our Lord and the Apostles, or a man made heresy. I think this is one of the more effective and clear discussions in recent Catholic Apologetics history demonstrating that Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible nor in the Early Church, and thus was a novel teaching at the time of the Protestant revolt. Just as Protestants twist and distort Scripture, so too some do this as well with the Fathers. You will see this throughout this dialogue. In each circumstance, I strive to stay on the primary topic of Sola Scriptura and provide immediate and wider context along with sound exegesis, to emphatically prove without any question that Sola Scriptura is a false teaching. I hope you are edified and strengthened by this debate, and may we pray for the conversion of all Protestants to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord. ZACH is defending the Protestant position (Reformed Baptist); JOE is defending the Catholic Christian position.

ZACH: The initial claim was that “The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible”. It is true that the scripture nowhere explicitly verbatim states “look only to scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith”. But many true and important doctrines come by necessary consequence of clear teaching. So the question is whether Sola Scriptura is a necessary consequence of what the scripture explicitly teaches; and I am convinced it is. This is my summary of why it is, but I know we’ll get into the details later.

What God says is truth, and the ultimate rule of faith (Romans 3:4, Hebrews 12:2)

God has revealed Himself through angels, prophets, and finally his Son (Hebrews 1:1-2)

God’s revelation of His Son comes to us through his Apostles (Hebrews 2, 2 Peter 1:21, every recorded Word of Our Lord comes from Apostolic witness)

We know Holy Scripture is infallible Apostolic transmission of Christ’s teaching (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:22)

no words of Our Lord or His Apostles have been preserved outside of Holy Scripture.

No one since the Apostles have granted authority to speak God’s Word infallibly

If the above is true, then Sola Scriptura is true by necessary consequence of what Scripture teaches.

JOE: It is good that you admitted there is no explicit reference in Sacred Scripture to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, i.e. “look only to Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith.” It is also a good admission that “many true and important doctrines come by necessary consequence of clear teaching.” Catholics agree with this, although very often Protestants will likewise demand explicit proof of dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Intercession of the Saints, Infant Baptism, etc. We make a similar point, that such doctrines come by necessary consequence. I noticed you said, “necessary consequence of clear teaching.” This of course will play a factor, insofar as one determines what constitutes as “clear” teaching, and who ultimately has the authority to determine what is clear when it comes to interpretation. But that can be discussed eventually. Still, we do maintain that since Sola Scriptura is such a foundational doctrine, it ought to be found more readily throughout Scripture, not just by a deduction of different points.

Looking at your bullet point summation, I have no problem with the first point, “What God says is truth, and the ultimate rule of faith.” I also have no problem with the second point, “God has revealed Himself through angels, prophets, and finally his Son.” The third point, however, is interesting in how it is worded, and I’d like to focus on that just a bit. “God’s revelation of His Son comes to us through his Apostles” and its correlated point, “every recorded Word of Our Lord comes from Apostolic witness.” Well, in some cases, yes; but not in every case. More appropriately, it comes from witness of Apostles, or men designated in some fashion by the Apostles. For example, St. Luke and St. Mark were not Apostles. They were disciples and friends of the Apostles, yet their Gospels are considered divine revelation. By contrast, St. Barnabas, St. Clement, St. Polycarp, and St. Ignatius of Antioch were also disciples and friends of the Apostles, but their writings are not divinely inspired revelation. This is because the Church determined their writings were not divinely inspired, even though they, like St. Luke and St. Mark, were not Apostles, but rather were contemporaries of the Apostles.

Now, keep in mind, when you write, “every recorded Word of Our Lord,” you may be referring to His specific words during His public ministry, whereas I am expanding that of course to His Word in the sense of all divinely inspired revelation comes directly from God and thus is appropriately called His Word. We have evidence in the early Church that St. Clement’s and Polycarp’s letters were proclaimed for some time, and that many speculated whether the Didache, Hermas, and Barnabas were inspired. On the other side of the coin, some questioned Hebrews, the Apocalypse (Revelation), 2nd and 3rd John, and Jude. An extra biblical authority was needed to make the determination on which books would ultimately be included in the canon. Merely knowing an Apostle or having been taught or ordained by an Apostle did not automatically mean one’s writing was inspired revelation. The Church had to make the decision, and their decision is still accepted to this day by every Protestant at least with regard to the New Testament.

Your fourth bullet point is, “We know Holy Scripture is infallible Apostolic transmission of Christ’s teaching.” A minor point is the usage of the word “infallible.” It is more appropriate to say it is inspired and inerrant, which means it comes directly from God and thus is incapable of containing error, whereas the term “infallible” is more so applied to human’s making determinations that can not contain mistakes since God prevents them from doing so. But yes, we agree that Sacred Scripture is inspired and free from error, but we still necessitate an extra biblical authority to teach us which writings ought to be considered divine revelation, as opposed to writings which may be good and worthwhile but are merely the writings of men. This same authority also is tasked with teaching us which beliefs are genuine Sacred Tradition, as opposed to traditions of men.

St. Paul teaches that his oral preaching is the Word of God (1 Thess 2:13), and that his hearers need to stand firm and hold fast to everything he teaches whether by oral preaching or written epistle (2 Thess 2:14). The Greek term eite (“whether,” “or”) connotes a conditional clause. I know you make a point that this seems to imply St. Paul’s oral teachings must be identical, or near identical, to his written epistles, but I would argue the natural reading of the text suggests otherwise. Using eite indicates that in his body of teaching, there are some things he has taught orally and other things he taught in writing. There may be some cross over between both, but the point is that the hearers must stand firm in, and abide by, all of it. There is no indication I can find anywhere in Sacred Scripture that at some point in the future, all of his oral teachings will be confined to writing somewhere among his letters, and that once they are, it will be the writings solely that will act as the sole ultimate rule of faith.

It suffices to say that we do not have any record in Scripture of an Apostle or prophet saying, “Scripture will be the sole authority one day once public revelation ceases,” or, “You must listen to what we teach orally under God’s inspiration, but eventually all of it will be put into writing and then that will serve as your sole ultimate authority.” You made a mention of Scripture being phrased as “God-breathed” in 2 Tim 3:16, but again, first we would have to determine which writings belong in that category, and also we can not overlook St. Paul’s statement, “When you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God.” This shows that as St. Paul is actively teaching orally, his oral teachings are divinely inspired revelation.

This leads to some important questions: How can you have a Bible passage (or even a deduction of passages) teaching Scripture alone is the sole authority when Sola Scriptura is not being practiced at that time in the first century, since oral revelation is still being given? Secondly, how can it teach it is the sole authority on matters of faith when it needs an extra biblical authority to teach us which writings constitute divinely inspired revelation? Thirdly, how can it teach it is the sole authority when it never reveals to us (implicitly or explicitly) that eventually all of the oral teachings of the Apostles which are the Word of God will in some fashion be confined to writing, and that this will occur once the last Apostle dies?

Going back briefly to the term eite in 2 Thess 2:14, if I wrote you a text message concerning points of the doctrine of Baptism, and then later on we met up for coffee and discussed it in person, and I said, “Hold fast to everything I said on this topic whether by my text or through this conversation,” would that not imply that there are important items to be contained in both? If there are two modes by which divine revelation comes to us in the first century (written and oral), and the source behind both is the same (the Holy Ghost), then how can one qualify as the sole authority? If St. Luke writes that St. Paul said regarding Baptism, “This promise is for you and your children,” but then minutes later St. Paul preaches, “You need to baptize your children,” then both of these statements would qualify equally as the Word of God, and that would prove the case for Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

As far as I understand, you personally do not believe in the doctrine of Infant Baptism, or even Baptismal Regeneration, for that matter. And yet, St. Justin Martyr in 148 AD teaches that Baptismal Regeneration was taught by the Apostles. This goes to your fifth bullet point, “no words of Our Lord or His Apostles have been preserved outside of Holy Scripture.” The issue however is not about specific phrases, but rather teachings from Our Lord and the Apostles. St. Justin writes, “They are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth which we were reborn: in the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing of water.” He then quotes verbatim John 3:5, on being born again, and writes, “The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles.” This means Baptismal Regeneration was taught by the Apostles. Since you do not believe in Baptismal Regeneration, it would mean you do not hold to a direct teaching of the Apostles, and thus, you deny a doctrine of inspired revelation.

St. Augustine teaches that heretics can validly administer Baptism, a teaching not to be found in Sacred Scripture. Tertullian says we are to commemorate the anniversaries of the death of martyrs and make offerings for them (liturgical Feast Days). St. Basil said the Apostles taught the Sign of the Cross prayer. St. Irenaeus says all churches must agree with the Church of Rome due to its superior origin. St. Irenaeus and Tertullian both taught that public revelation ended with the death of the Apostles. St. Irenaeus and St. Justin both call Our Lady “the New Eve.” St. Ignatius, the Didache, and St. Barnabas all teach that Sunday has replaced the Sabbath as the Lord’s Day, something we see being practiced by the end of the New Testament but nowhere explicitly taught or commanded in the New Testament. St. Clement of Alexandria taught that contraception was a sin. St. Polycarp spoke of methods of fasting he learned from St. John the Apostle. Origen says Infant Baptism was handed down from the oral preaching of the Apostles.

Origen in 248 AD, “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” This shows a teaching not found explicitly in Sacred Scripture, and yet we are bound to stand firm and hold fast to it.

I already asked above how can Scripture teach it alone is the sole authority when Sola Scriptura itself is not being practiced in the first century. Some additional questions that are connected: How do we know when public divine revelation ceased? Do you believe Infant Baptism is a dogma of divine revelation, a teaching of Our Lord and the Apostles, or is it a heresy, a tradition of men? Where does Scripture teach that the teachings contained in the oral preaching of the Apostles would eventually be confined to Scripture alone as the sole rule moving forward? Does the Protestant model of denominationalism (and non-denominationalism) under the Sola Scriptura rubric provide a mechanism whereby leaders can bind doctrines or call Councils (such as Acts 15) to officially settle disputes? Is contraception a sin, and is your church able to authoritatively teach and instruct its people that it is a sin which offends God? If a pastor teaches it is not a sin, is he a heretic?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ZACH: Thanks for the response, Joe. I appreciate the dialogue.

1. I know you said "since Sola Scriptura is such a foundational doctrine, it ought to be found more readily throughout Scripture, not just by a deduction of different points." but of course I would submit that Sola Scriptura is the only way to follow scripture telling us to give heed to the apostolic teaching (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Hebrews 2&6, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, etc). In order to follow Apostolic teaching, we have to know it. But the only actual preserved words of the apostles is Sacred Scripture. It's not enough for a father to claim 100 years later that some doctrine was Apostolic; we actually have to have evidence to substantiate such a claim. And if not a single church who received "oral Apostolic teaching" ever wrote it down to preserve it (as was clearly and painfully done with scripture), should we actually believe it to be Apostolic? Probably not. The burden of proof is rather for any doctrine not found in Holy Scripture; Sola Scriptura is the natural way holding to known Apostolic teaching.

2. Sorry to skip around, just thought this point flowed next naturally.

2.1. I know you've quoted Justin Martyr supposedly on Baptismal Regeneration and of course, I'm no Justin expert. But firstly, that quote sounds like it could just as easily be an evocation of the imagery of baptism and rebirth, such as is in Romans 6; it doesn't seem to necessitate Baptismal Regeneration. Perhaps there is more context in more of his writing, but just what you've provided don't entirely convince me.

2.2. Not only this, but in the information you've given, Justin quotes John 3:5 and then says they have learned this from the Apostles. That sounds like Justin is claiming his view comes from Holy Scripture; that does not at all sound like he is claiming his view comes from Oral Tradition. And if his view comes from Scripture, we can analyze his view based on Scripture.

2.3. But let us assume Justin does mean Baptismal Regeneration and Oral Tradition. Do we believe Justin? Justin is not inspired, nor inerrant, nor has the church ever viewed his writings as Scripture, so should we accept his view? We know Justin Martyr wrote some things that are simply untrue; for example, Justin had a Platonic / Gnostic view that God "did fashion all things out of unformed matter, (1 Apology) as well as other unorthodox views (Jesus was born in a cave, Satan didn't blaspheme until Christ appeared, Perpetual Sabbath's, etc), so why should we accept his view of baptismal Regeneration being apostolic? Not saying Justin isn't right and helpful in some areas, but he was clearly wrong in others. It's almost like we need a measuring stick or an infallible rule of faith to help us know when the writings of fallible men are helpful and unhelpful.

2.4. And most importantly when we do look to Scripture, it does not teach Baptismal Regeneration. Happy to debate that topic at another time, but suffice it to say that if there is teaching that contradicts the written word, the teaching shows up 100 years later than Scripture from a teacher with known issues, I think we have to judge that teaching by Scripture and not the other way round. As Our Lord asked the Pharisees Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? " or as Isaiah wrote " Teaching as doctrines the commands of men. This we must refuse to do. Less importantly, I don't think Baptismal Regeneration became the majority view of the church until maybe the late 4th century ; thus if Justin was teaching Baptismal Regeneration (again, doubted), he would have been a minority Witness at that time.

3. That same logic from point 2 above must be applied to any other teacher among the early fathers.

3.1. Let us just take Irenaeus. You have said

" Irenaeus says all churches must agree with the Church of Rome due to its superior origin. St. Irenaeus and Tertullian both taught that public revelation ended with the death of the Apostles. St. Irenaeus and St. Justin both call Our Lady the New Eve. St. Ignatius, the Didache, and St. Barnabas all teach that Sunday has replaced the Sabbath as the Lord’s Day, something we see being practiced by the end of the New Testament but nowhere explicitly taught or commanded in the New Testament." Now, I disagree with the first point (at least now, given Rome's current stance; maybe I would have agreed back then) but agree with the other 2. But not because of Irenaeus. In his work Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 22, Irenaus claimed that it was Apostolic tradition that Jesus lived to be 50 years old. This is a view that I don't think even Rome holds to today, which means Rome rejects Irenaeus's claim. Thus not every claim to Apostolic tradition is true; which means they have to be validated by something else. Even during the times of the apostles, there were so-called Apostolic oral traditions growing up; John 21:23 mentions there was a saying going out (ostensibly from the Lord) that some of the Apostles would not see death. But this was a misrepresentation of what our Lord said, which John himself corrected.

3.2.

Regarding Irenaeus, let us examine some of the things he wrote.

Against Heresies 3.5.1

"Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him"

What is the tradition of the Apostles we should revert to according to Irenaeus? Holy Scripture.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.1

"We have learned from none other the plan of our Salvation than from those through Whom The Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time Proclaim in public and at a later period by the will of God hand it down to us in the scriptures to be the ground and pillar of our faith

What is the ground and pillar of our faith according to Irenaeus? Holy Scripture.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.2

"When however they are confuted from the scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same scriptures as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For they alleged that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents but orally"

Who does Irenaus say looks to oral tradition rather than Holy Scripture? Heretics.

I know there are other teachings of Irenaeus that Protestants would likely disagree with, but those statements are far cry from what I've heard from Roman Catholics regarding scripture. They almost sound Protestant.

3.3.

With regard to any claim of the fathers, we would do well to listen to Augustine as he wrote in De Trinitate, Book 1, Chapters 2-3

"First, however, we must demonstrate, according to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, whether the faith be so [...] Further let me ask of my reader, wherever, alike with myself, he is certain, there to go on with me; wherever, alike with myself, he hesitates, there to join with me in inquiring; wherever he recognizes himself to be in error, there to return to me; wherever he recognizes me to be so, there to call me back: so that we may enter together upon the path of charity, and advance towards Him of whom it is said, Seek His face evermore. "

4. No dispute for me with regard to Luke and Mark and Hebrews. The only caveat I would add is that Luke tells us his testimony was based on eyewitnesses, which almost certainly included apostles. Also church history seems to indicate that Mark's account is St Peter's account, and Hebrews came from Paul. So the acceptance of those letters is not based on authorship, but it is based on direct Apostolic origin / oversight.

5. With regard to the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, Hebrews, the Apocalypse (Revelation), 2nd and 3rd John, and Jude, you said "An extra biblical authority was needed to make the determination on which books would ultimately be included in the canon. [...]. The Church had to make the decision"

5.1 Of course, I agree that the church did have to make a decision, but at a practical level; where there is disagreement, there has to be a decision.

But this decision was what the church RECOGNIZED as scripture; those books were not Holy Scripture because the church declared them so, the church merely recognized what was already scripture. This is evident in their own reasoning; one of the criteria for inclusion in the Canon was whether the books were in use in the church as scripture. Councils do not make scripture, St Peter tells us what makes scripture; 2 Peter 1:21 "For no prophecy was ever made by the will of man, but men being moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." This means by the time

Laodecia first defined canon in 365, the canon was complete and that council mere recognized it (which curiously enough included almost none of the Deutero-cannon).

5.2. We have ample reason to believe any specific council could have gotten it wrong; not only do we agree that Marcion was very wrong in his truncated view of Canon, but Trent's dogmatic declaration of Canon would disagree regarding the Deuterocannon with Laodicea, as well as the councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, and the Gelasian decree (as do Protestants but for opposing reasons). Not to mention how

The Fifth Lateran Council explicitly contradicts the Council of Basel, justifying this by Ephesus and Chalcedon, as well as overturning the Sacrosancta Decree from the Council of Constance, and condemning the Council of Pisa and declaring everything it had done null and void.

Councils of men can get it wrong and they have.

5.3. Simply put, Canon exists because God spoke through holy men. It is helpful for the church to recognize what is canon, but their recognition is just that, and is subject to all the failings of fallible men. And to be fair, Protestants agree with nearly all of the determinations of Canon and the reasoning a of these councils, minus the deuterocannon, in which we agree with Laodecia, as well as Origen, Melito of Sardis, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzen, Hilary of Poitier, Epiphanius of Salamis, Irenaus, Tertullian, John of Damascus, and Gregory the Great.

6. You said "a minor point is the usage of the world infallible. It is more appropriate to say inspired and inerrant". But no, we may actually disagree here. Holy Scripture as St Peter taught, comes from God Himself, and is therefore inspired. Because Holy Scripture comes from God, it can never err or be in error because God cannot, therefore it is infallible. Because it cannot err, it does not, therefore it is inerrant. I'm not sure if you would deny the infallibility of Holy Scripture, but claiming that the words of God (as St Peter calls Scripture, or God-Breathed per St. Paul) can possibly be in error sounds problematic to say the least.

7.1. With regard to the conditional clause "eite" in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, by definition, the use of either/or means that the source of "tradition" in question does not matter; if word of mouth, fine, but if letter, also fine. Just as in your coffee shop example, if you taught me baptism both in the coffee shop and by letter, the source does not matter. But if you taught me baptism by letter, and the Perpetual of virginity of Mary in person, then the source matters a great deal; you would need me to hold fast to both the coffee shop conversation AND the letter. Rome argues that both sources of tradition must be fully accepted, as they have important distinctions; Rome teaches a both / and conditional. I think you are translating either/or as both / and, which is simply not the same.

7.2. Additionally, if no one wrote down the coffee shop conversation and it was lost to history, but we have the letter, then holding to the letter is the only way to satisfy the either/or conditional. If Rome can produce what Saint Paul specifically taught to the Thessalonians orally, this conversation would be different. But no one has preserved the actual words taught by the apostles orally outside of Holy Scripture. Rome may claim certain snippets from the fathers count as fragments of Holy Tradition that together with scripture constitute the deposit of faith, but even in the fathers, none of these fragments actually trace back to a specific apostle or their teaching at a specific time and place. So Scripture has a pedigree of manuscripts that are nearly universally accepted by the church and go back almost to the time of the apostles nearly verbatim, but "oral tradition" has a smattering of sometimes contradicting teachings that show up later and are not universally accepted until sometimes much later. So yes, I think Scripture Alone is the only sure way of actually satisfying 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

8. You said "we do not have any record in Scripture of an Apostle or prophet saying, 'Scripture will be the sole authority one day once public revelation ceases,' or, 'You must listen to what we teach orally under God’s inspiration, but eventually all of it will be put into writing and then that will serve as your sole ultimate authority.'

And of course, as you already saw, I agree that we don't have scripture starting that point explicitly. But as I've listed in point 7 above, Sola Scriptura is the default position when Scripture is the only preserved oral Apostolic teaching. 2 Timothy 3:16 compounds this further; it is only scripture that is described as being God-breathed; it is only scripture that is described as being profitable for the man of God to make him PERFECT for EVERY good work. St Peter in 2 Peter 1:19 says that scripture is a more sure word of prophecy, even than the Angels at the Mount of transfiguration. It is scripture that Saint Paul points Timothy to at the end of his life, and it is scripture that Peter points to at the end of his. Why? Because scripture contains the fullness of apostolic teaching.

9. You've said "This leads to some important questions" so let me answer them in order

9.1. "How can you have a Bible passage (or even a deduction of passages) teaching Scripture alone is the sole authority when Sola Scriptura is not being practiced at that time in the first century, since oral revelation is still being given?"

But if the sole authority is the teachings of Christ, and the teachings of Christ are revealed through the apostles, then after the apostles death, only what is preserved of their teaching remains as authority. Yes, the apostle's oral teaching were binding to those who heard them, but oral teaching must be preserved for non-hearers to abide by it. Protestants deny that there is any truly oral Apostolic tradition outside holy Scripture, for no Apostolic words or writings are preserved outside of scripture. And we deny that the authority of the apostles was or could be passed down. Sola Scriptura remains.

9.2. You asked "how can [Scripture] teach it is the sole authority on matters of faith when it needs an extra biblical authority to teach us which writings constitute divinely inspired revelation?"

But the canon is an artifact of historical revelation; it's not as though the councils used mystic intuition to declare what was Scripture. The councils of the church appear to have used normal methods to determine what was scripture, such as; what was in use by the church, what was consistent with history, what was understood to be authored by the apostles, etc. That means the Canon already existed. Yes, it's incredibly valuable to have the church councils provide a single understanding, but the Romans did not need the church council to tell them Paul's letter was authoritative, nor did anyone who received circulated the letter to the Romans, or any other Epistle; it was already scripture when they got it, and what teaching they had, they were obligated to hold.

9.3. You asked "how can [Scripture] teach it is the sole authority when it never reveals to us (implicitly or explicitly) that eventually all of the oral teachings of the Apostles which are the Word of God will in some fashion be confined to writing, and that this will occur once the last Apostle dies?"

But doesn't this assume that there is a body of oral teaching that is distinct from the written word? The scriptures we've already discussed seem to indicate the opposite. So we don't need another explicit written rule; the apostles told us to hold to their teaching, and the only Apostolic teachings preserved are Holy Scripture.

10. You had some additional questions, so I'll answer. Answering these in short form, happy to have longer discussion as needed.

10.1. "How do we know when public divine revelation ceased?"

Hebrews 1,2, and 6 teach us that the revelation of Christ came via his apostles. With the death of the Apostles is the closure of the apostolic witness.

10.2. "Do you believe Infant Baptism is a dogma of divine revelation, a teaching of Our Lord and the Apostles, or is it a heresy, a tradition of men? "

As a good baptist, I do differ on infant baptism from many of my Protestant brethren, but yes, a tradition of men. Not heresy, but not apostolic. To be fair, it is a distortion that shows up early in church history.

10.3. "Where does Scripture teach that the teachings contained in the oral preaching of the Apostles would eventually be confined to Scripture along as the sole rule moving forward? "

Kinda like discussed in #9 and above, it's the default position; if were are told in Scripture to hold to Apostolic teachings and Scripture is the only preserved Apostolic teaching, then scripture alone is the only way to obey that command.

10.4. "Does the Protestant model of denominationalism (and non-denominationalism) under the Sola Scriptura rubric provide a mechanism whereby leaders can bind doctrines or call Councils (such as Acts 15) to officially settle disputes?"

This will again be a very Baptist n Scripture, as most Protestant groups would disagree, but there no authority described in Scripture above the local church, with the exception of the Apostles. The Acts 15 council is Apostolic. I think such non- apostolic councils have been and can be beneficial, but not required by Scripture.

10.5. "Is contraception a sin, and is your church able to authoritatively teach and instruct its people that it is a sin which offends God? If a pastor teaches it is not a sin, is he a heretic?"

Abortifacient contraceptive is a sin, yes; it destroys a fertilized egg which is a life in the image of God. My wife and I have actually adopted 2 abandoned IVF embryos so they won't be destroyed, and we will be raising them as our own children, because we believe this. Yes, our church is able to instruct this, and yes, if a pastor believes you can destroy the Imago Dei, he is either a heretic or sorely confused and likely not qualified to pastor. I don't hold that all contraception is a sin (e.g. Coitus Interruptus, Hormonal Birth Control), only that which destroys a fertilized egg. But I think most birth control is at best unwise; I think hormonal birth control is probably wrecking the hormonal balance of many women in the US, and unnecessarily delaying childbearing. But I can't argue that it is inherently sinful.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOE: Appreciate this response, Zach. We have a lot of ground to cover, so here goes. I will attempt to respond to each point you raised. I will also put special emphasis to the citations and comments concerning the Fathers, principally St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, and St. Augustine. This will include immediate as well as wider context, and also support from Protestant historians. I will also delve into the exegesis offered for 2 Timothy 3:16-17, as well as related passages.

ZACH: Thanks for the response, Joe. I appreciate the dialogue.

JOE: There is circular reason occurring here, or assuming things to be true without having first established why it’s true. And that can happen with anyone on any side of course. There are certain doctrines we take for granted as needing to be true to substantiate our worldview. Sola Scriptura however being so foundational still needs to be held to scrutiny. You wrote, “Sola Scriptura is the only way to follow scripture telling us to give heed to apostolic teaching,” and then you cited 2 Thessalonians 2:15, which teaches: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, whether by word, or by letter from us.” Again, the natural reading of this text would lead one to ask, “Where can I find their letters? Where can I find what they taught by word?” The letters would be found in the New Testament. The oral preaching would be discovered through the testimony of the early Church, especially since Our Lord promised to remain forever with His Church in her teaching. Matthew 28:20, “Teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age.” This shows that the oral teachings of the Apostles which are divine revelation will be protected in a special way so that future generations can know what is contained within it.

This is further confirmed by God’s own promise to lead His Church into truth in John 16:13, “But when He, the Spirit of truth, shall come, He will guide you into all the truth.” And we see this promise receive a fulfillment right in the New Testament, in Acts 15:28 at a church council convened by the leadership of the Church, “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, to lay upon you no further burden.” So the Holy Ghost worked with the leadership in determining a dogma which would stand until the end of time. So we see that God will preserve the oral teachings of the Apostles through the protection of the Holy Ghost until the end of time. The witness to this is the testimony of the early Church. If they are unanimous in a teaching, then it belongs to the apostolic tradition. If there is dispute, the Church has authority to make a determination.

Sola Scriptura is not the “only way” to give heed to apostolic teaching, otherwise there would have been no need for the Council of Jerusalem, and the early Church would not have spoken on doctrines that belong primarily to unwritten apostolic Tradition (more on that in a bit). When you say it is not enough for a Father to claim a teaching is apostolic 100 years later, it depends. If the Fathers teach with moral unanimity, then it is enough. God would not have allowed for a heresy to be disseminated in the early Church with consistency. If there is not certainty, the Church can make a decision. One of the things the Church will do would be to

examine Scripture, but it would not be up to individual lay members to privately interpret and arrive to their own conclusions and find pastors that agree with them. We also have to remember that the Church was very cautious about heresy creeping in especially in those early centuries. Many men were condemned as heretics for introducing false teachings. On a logical basis as well, if one sees a Father writing on a doctrine, within a century of the Apostles, it makes no sense to say, “Well, they must be wrong because my interpretation is different.” Rather, perhaps one is misinterpreting Scripture, since these martyrs are not just making up doctrines. They are commenting on what has been handed down to them through the succession of bishops, which is precisely what the Fathers say is the means of knowing truth (more on that later).

ZACH: 2. Sorry to skip around, just thought this point flowed next naturally.

JOE: It will be helpful here for me to post the complete context of St. Justin’s quote, because it plainly teaches Baptismal Regeneration. In fact, in Protestant historian Phillip Schaff’s own translation, he has the saint using the word “regenerate.” I will post here shortly. It is not just a symbolic type imagery, and even then, there is more I could say regarding Romans 6, but we can cover that another time. The point here is that St. Justin connects being “born again” directly to the water regenerating the soul at Baptism. Protestants have to wrestle with why someone so early in history (within a century of the Apostles) is teaching this when it does not square away with their modern private interpretations on bible passages.

This leaves us with the question on who ought to be trusted more: pastors centuries removed from the Apostolic era, or martyrs who were teaching what was handed to them a generation after the Apostles. Sacred Tradition has a dual role. In one sense, it contains the unwritten teachings of the Apostles, and in another sense, it preserves for us the correct interpretation of certain passages from Scripture. So for example, when St. Justin quotes John 3:5, you see that as justifying that the view comes from Holy Scripture. But this is exactly the point. The understanding that Baptismal waters regenerate the soul precisely comes from John 3:5. You will object that it does not, but we will maintain that your interpretation is incorrect.

The reality is, either interpretation could be plausible, but only one can be true. Either one can attempt to find other passages to support it, but only one can be correct. When you teach that John 3:5 is not about Baptismal Regeneration, you have to wrestle with the reality that the earliest Christians in the post-apostolic era, martyrs for their faith, had been taught an interpretation that completely differed from yours. You wrote, “We can analyze his view based on Scripture,” but again, this is the circular reasoning I mentioned. Someone presents evidence to you that a Saint, Apologist, and Martyr of the mid second century says that John 3:5 is about the soul being regenerated at Baptism in the water, and that this was handed down by the Apostles, and you conclude, “Sorry, no. My interpretation disagrees because I interpret other passages to mean something different. My view is correct, he does not know what he was talking about.” Here is St. Justin’s quote with full context:

“I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (John 3:5). Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Isaiah the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, says the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if you refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it” (Isaiah 1:16-20). And for this rite we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone.”

You can teach people otherwise, with your own interpretation. But you ought to at least let it be known that the earliest testimonies of Christian martyrs in history disagree with your interpretation, so that people are made aware.

ZACH: 2.3. But let us assume Justin does mean Baptismal Regeneration and Oral Tradition. Do we believe Justin? Justin is not inspired, nor inerrant, nor has the church ever viewed his writings as Scripture, so should we accept his view? We know Justin Martyr wrote some things that are simply untrue; for example, Justin had a Platonic / Gnostic view that God "did fashion all things out of unformed matter,” (1 Apology) as well as other unorthodox views (Jesus was born in a cave, Satan didn't blaspheme until Christ appeared, Perpetual Sabbath's, etc), so why should we accept his view of baptismal Regeneration being apostolic? Not saying Justin isn't right and helpful in some areas, but he was clearly wrong in others. It's almost like we need a measuring stick or an infallible rule of faith to help us know when the writings of fallible men are helpful and unhelpful.

JOE: He does not need to be inspired or inerrant. He is a witness to an understanding that differs from your own, and he learned his faith in his travels to Ephesus and Rome through Christian teachers who learned their faith from the Apostles. He died a martyr for this faith, and wrote several works attempting to refute heretical ideas. His life and works were praised by Christians in the generations following him. So we can either trust what he was told is the correct understanding of John 3:5, or we can trust your interpretation. You might quote a handful of other Bible passages to back up your view, but for Christians in those days, St. Justin could just as well say, “This is what I was taught by Christians who knew the Apostles.” People can decide for themselves if St. Justin got it wrong but 20th century Protestants got it right. Now, you cited some statements of St. Justin that you claim are untrue. Let’s look at those briefly.

“Did fashion all things out of unformed matter.” St. Justin was known for being an opponent of the Gnostics. In fact, in his First Apology chapter 26, he names several Gnostics of his day. In regards to “unformed matter,” theologians have said he was commenting on Genesis 1:2, “Now the earth was formless and void, and

darkness was over the surface of the deep.” The mistake is thinking he was referring to Genesis 1:1. St. Thomas Aquinas noted as well that “unformed matter” is identical to “ex nihlo” or “out of nothing,” since unformed or formless matter is an oxymoron and does not exist. In other words, matter had to be formed in order for God to create. In Greek philosophy, something unformed means it exists in potential in the mind but needs to be actuated. Either understanding is perfectly acceptable. More importantly, St. Justin does not say “preexisting unformed matter,” which would have been wrong. This is why Protestants tend to have a problem with Wisdom 11:17 but there is no issue or contradiction, just a misunderstanding in interpretation. “Thy Almighty hand created the world from formless matter.” Aquinas notes, “Primary matter was not created altogether formless, nor under any one common form, but under distinct forms. And so, if the formlessness of matter be taken as referring to the condition of primary matter, which in itself is formless, this formlessness did not precede in time its formation or distinction, but only in origin and nature.” Suffice to say, St. Justin’s phrase poses no problem for the Christian. Like St. Augustine and St. Thomas after him, he incorporated Greek philosophical principles to better explain Christian theology, and he certainly never advocated for preexisting matter. His statement is orthodox.

“Jesus was born in a cave.” This is the earliest and most traditional understanding. St. Justin notes the cave was used as a stable. Origen and St. Jerome (3rd and 4th century) also both note He was born in a cave used as a stable. The Basilica of the Nativity, built in the 4th century to commemorate the spot where the stable was placed according to historical testimony of the time, was indeed built over a cave. This view was rarely ever questioned until the early 20th century from liberal scholars.

“Satan didn't blaspheme until Christ appeared.” This phrase comes from Fragments of his works, and some have speculated it could be spurious. Either way, he never mentions it as an apostolic tradition, but more so as a reflection on Satan learning about the eternal fire prepared for him through the discourses of Our Lord. St. Irenaeus wrote on this as well. There are also some who speculate that the Fall of Lucifer was caused by him being shown an image of the pre-incarnate God Man and showing he would have to worship Him, and in his pride and rebellion he cursed and refused. Either way, this is not a problematic phrase, nor is it posited as an apostolic tradition, and it is not completely certain it comes from him anyways.

“Perpetual Sabbath's.” Since St. Justin had just written that Sunday was now the Lord’s Day (an unwritten tradition that the Apostles preached on), he then comments on the Saturday Sabbath and says the Jews should have used it to rest from sinning. In that regard, he encourages a perpetual sabbath, meaning that Christians ought not sin at all. Again, nothing problematic. He just has to be read in context.

You wrote, “It's almost like we need a measuring stick or an infallible rule of faith to help us know when the writings of fallible men are helpful and unhelpful.” Yes, very true. We need an infallible rule of faith to help us know when certain teachings of the Fathers are unwritten apostolic traditions, and also which writings of the Apostles and their disciples are divine revelation. The Protestant has no mechanism for this, other than to hope Catholic bishops and councils got it right.

ZACH: 2.4. And most importantly when we do look to Scripture, it does not teach Baptismal Regeneration. Happy to debate that topic at another time, but suffice it to say that if there is teaching that contradicts the written word, the teaching shows up 100 years later than Scripture from a teacher with known issues, I think we have to judge that teaching by Scripture and not the other way round. As Our Lord asked the Pharisees “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? " or as Isaiah wrote " Teaching as doctrines the commands of men.” This we must refuse to do. Less importantly, I don't think Baptismal Regeneration became the majority view of the church until mayne the late 4th century ; thus

if Justin was teaching Baptismal Regeneration (again, doubted), he would have been a minority Witness at that time.

JOE: This underscores the real issue here. “When we look to Scripture, it does not teach Baptismal Regeneration.” Says who? Says individuals who privately interpret it differently. Individuals who interpret it different from saints and martyrs of the early history of the Christian Faith. Saints and martyrs who helped defend the dogmas of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ and the Hypostatic Union against heretics. But they got it wrong, because some today interpret certain passages differently. The Holy Ghost was not leading the Church into truth in that era. Using your own logic, if there is teaching that shows up 16 centuries after Our Lord and the Apostles, we have to judge that teaching by Scripture and the consensus of the Fathers, not the other way around. Lest we end up with traditions of men, such as Sola Scriptura or symbolic Baptism or rejection of infant Baptism or defining “born again” in ways the Apostles never did. You wrote that Baptismal Regeneration was not the “majority view” until the late 4th century. So what was the majority view? Here are statements that do not indicate a minority view:

“We have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins.” Barnabas, 70 AD

“There is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.” Hermas, 88 AD

“And when we come to refute [the heretics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole faith.” St. Irenaeus, 180 AD

“[Men] receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration.” St. Theophilus, 181 AD

“A treatise on our sacrament of water, by which the sins of our earlier blindness are washed away and we are released for eternal life will not be superfluous… Taking away death by the washing away of sins. The guilt being removed, the penalty, of course, is also removed.” Tertullian, 200 AD

“It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism.” Origen, 235 AD

“If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation.” St. Cyril, 350 AD

These are not the statements of Reformed Baptists. These statements all demonstrate a consistent unbroken belief in Baptismal Regeneration, and there are more that could be included. Again, it was St. Justin who said that this was the proper interpretation of John 3:5 as taught by the Apostles.

ZACH: 3. That same logic from point 2 above must be applied to any other teacher among the early fathers.

3.1. Let us just take Irenaeus. You have said

Apostolic tradition that Jesus lived to be 50 years old. This is a view that I don't think even Rome holds to today, which means Rome rejects Irenaeus's claim. Thus not every claim to Apostolic tradition is true; which means they have to be validated by something else. Even during the times of the apostles, there were so-called Apostolic oral traditions growing up; John 21:23 mentions there was a saying going out (ostensibly from the Lord) that some of the Apostles would not see death. But this was a misrepresentation of what our Lord said, which John himself corrected.

JOE: We have no issue with St. Irenaeus’ teaching that all churches must agree with the Church of Rome. In her official authoritative teachings, yes, every church must agree with her. Nothing regarding the “current stance” is binding and thus irrelevant.

Regarding the allegation that “Jesus lived to be 50 years old,” I will just cite a Protestant source, and thus unbiased, to show that it is not true that St. Irenaeus claimed this. Matthew Ervin of Apple Eye Ministries writes, “Many claim that Irenaeus was saying here that Jesus lived into his fifties before being crucified. Perhaps if some of this text was wrenched out of its context then it would appear that Irenaeus did make such a profound mistake. However, let us ask ourselves what Irenaeus’ point was here? Irenaeus explains that Jesus had reached the age of a master. He further explains that the first stage of life lasts until the age of thirty. It is after this that the second phase of life begins. One needed to reach this second phase in order to be an elder, and thus able to teach. When Irenaeus writes, “…which Our Lord possessed…” he is speaking to the fact that Jesus did indeed live into this second phase of life. He is surely not referencing “…and fiftieth year.” Admittedly, such a mistake could be made by the modern person who assumes that an ancient writes in the same way that he does. However, it is clear that the context tells us that Irenaeus is simply explaining what the second phase of life entails. Jesus only had to begin the second phase of life for Irenaeus to be correct in his teaching.”

That sums it up perfectly. You are correct that not every claim to Apostolic tradition is automatically ipso facto true. Just as not every letter circulating in the 1st or 2nd century was ipso facto divine written revelation. The Church is tasked with determining truth from error.

ZACH: 3.2. Regarding Irenaeus, let us examine some of the things he wrote.

Against Heresies 3.5.1

What is the tradition of the Apostles we should revert to according to Irenaeus? Holy Scripture.

JOE: Here is what St. Irenaeus means. Since they have the tradition from the apostles and it is permanent, they can then revert to Scriptural proof with complete confidence in knowing their interpretations will be in line with apostolic teaching. Since Reformed Baptists do not have the tradition from the apostles, and it is not permanent with them, they can not revert to Scriptural proof with confidence since they will be relying on their subjective private opinions (or best guesses) in regards to interpretation. And when teaching the faith, that will not suffice. There must be absolute certainty that the instruction is identical to that of the Apostles.

ZACH: Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.1

What is the ground and pillar of our faith according to Irenaeus? Holy Scripture.

JOE: A simple mistake made by the absence of commas. Here is the translation from a Protestant source, Roberts and Donaldson, Christian Literature Company: “We have learned from none other the plan of our salvation than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” So St. Irenaeus teaches that divine revelation began with oral preaching, and then secondly came also through written letters, and that this divine revelation is the ground and pillar of our faith. This is exactly the Catholic position. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture is the ground and pillar, and the reason why St. Paul says the Church is the ground and pillar in 1 Timothy 3:15 is because it is the Church which possesses the full entirety of divine revelation within her. Note what St. Irenaeus is showing here. Tradition came first (the unwritten oral preaching); followed by Scripture (the written portion); and he borrows the phrase from St. Paul pertaining to the Church since, as we shall see, one can only understand divine revelation correctly when connected to the succession of bishops in the Church.

ZACH: Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.2

Who does Irenaus say looks to oral tradition rather than Holy Scripture? Heretics.

JOE: Yes, and then he goes on to say that these same heretics also reject the tradition of the Apostles. And so since they reject both, he then resorts to utilizing apostolic succession to prove his point, that truth can only be found by ensuring your teachings trace back to the Apostles. Not by private interpretation, not by man made tradition. St. Irenaeus: “But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.”

This is as Catholic as you can get: we point to tradition which originates from the apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of the presbyters in the Church that is called Apostolic Succession. Not only that but look at the last line: “It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.” St. Irenaeus goes on to say this: “It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.”

ZACH: I know there are other teachings of Irenaeus that Protestants would likely disagree with, but those statements are far cry from what I've heard from Roman Catholics regarding scripture. They almost sound Protestant.

JOE: And so I have shown that these statements are perfectly in line with Catholic teaching, especially concerning Sacred Scripture. The problem is that when Protestants see a Father say something positive about Scripture, or extolling it, or speaking on its authority, they assume it means Sola Scriptura, when the reality is that it is perfectly consistent Catholic teaching. The related issue is that the Father is often quoted without any immediate or wider context. Here are some statements from St. Irenaeus, and let’s see if these reveal a Reformed Baptist view or a Catholic one, concerning authority. I will also cite some unbiased Protestant historians regarding the views of St. Irenaeus.

“The Church… has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith… although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same… But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.”

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?”

“To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”

“But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time, – a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles, – that, namely, which is handed down by the Church… the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.”

“We refute them out of these Scriptures, and shut them up to a belief in the advent of the Son of God. But our faith is stedfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from these Scriptures, which were interpreted in the way I have related; and the preaching of the Church is without interpolation. For the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these [heretics], agree with this aforesaid translation; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles.”

Protestant historian Ellen Flessman-van Leer on St. Irenaeus: “For Irenaeus, on the other hand, tradition and scripture are both quite unproblematic. They stand independently side by side, both absolutely authoritative, both unconditionally true, trustworthy, and convincing… Irenaeus and Tertullian point to the church tradition as the authoritative locus of the unadulterated teaching of the apostles, they cannot longer appeal to the immediate memory, as could the earliest writers. Instead they lay stress on the affirmation that this teaching has been transmitted faithfully from generation to generation. One could say that in their thinking, apostolic succession occupies the same place that is held by the living memory in the Apostolic Fathers.”

Protestant historian Philip Schaff: “Besides appealing to the Scriptures, the fathers, particularly Irenaeus and Tertullian, refer with equal confidence to the “rule of faith;” that is, the common faith of the church, as orally handed down in the unbroken succession of bishops from Christ and his apostles to their day, and above all as still living in the original apostolic churches, like those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome. Tradition is thus intimately connected with the primitive episcopate. The latter was the vehicle of the former, and both were looked upon as bulwarks against heresy.”

Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly: “His most characteristic thought, however, is that the Church is the sole repository of the truth, and is such because it has a monopoly of the apostolic writings, the apostolic oral tradition and the apostolic faith. Because of its proclamation of this one faith inherited from the apostles, the Church, scattered as it is throughout the entire world, can claim to be one. Hence his emphasis on ‘the canon of the truth’, i.e. the framework of doctrine which is handed down in the Church and which, in contrast to the variegated teachings of the Gnostics, is identical and self-consistent everywhere. In a previous chapter we noted his theory that the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back to the apostles themselves provides a guarantee that this faith is identical with the message which they originally proclaimed… But where in practice was this apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. Irenaeus believed that this was the case, stating that the Church preserved the tradition inherited from the Apostles and passed it on to her children. It was, he thought, a living tradition which was, in principle, independent of written documents.”

ZACH: 3.3. With regard to any claim of the fathers, we would do well to listen to Augustine as he wrote in De Trinitate, Book 1, Chapters 2-3

JOE: Catholics have no problem at all with this statement. We also demonstrate the faith through the Holy Scriptures, properly interpreted. We also hold to other statements also made by St. Augustine:

“If you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognize that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all.”

“As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful.For often have I perceived, with extreme sorrow, many disquietudes caused to weak brethren by the contentious pertinacity or superstitious vacillation of some who, in matters of this kind, which do not admit of final decision by the authority of Holy Scripture, or by the tradition of the universal Church.”

“I believe that this practice [of not rebaptizing heretics and schismatics] comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writings nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commanded and handed down by the Apostles themselves.”

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except Apostolic.”

“But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers, and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church.”

“It is not to be doubted that the dead are aided by prayers of the holy church, and by the salutary sacrifice, and by the alms, which are offered for their spirits… For this, which has been handed down by the Fathers, the universal church observes.”

“To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you; thus, since Holy Scripture cannot be mistaken, anyone fearing to be misled by the obscurity of this question has only to consult on this same subject this very Church which the Holy Scriptures point out without ambiguity.”

“Let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church.”

“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: – Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found.”

Protestant historian Heiko Oberman: “Augustine’s legacy to the middle ages on the question of Scripture and Tradition is a two-fold one. In the first place, he reflects the early Church principle of the coinherence of Scripture and Tradition… We find mention of an authoritative extrascriptural oral tradition. While on the one hand the Church “moves” the faithful to discover the authority of Scripture, Scripture on the other hand refers the faithful back to the authority of the Church with regard to a series of issues with which the Apostles did not deal in writing.”

Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly: “According to him [St. Augustine], the Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the mother of Christians [Ep 34:3; Serm 22:9]. There is no salvation apart from it; schismatics can have the faith and sacraments, but cannot put them to a profitable use since the Holy Spirit is only bestowed in the Church [De bapt 4:24; 7:87; Serm ad Caes 6]… It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its center at Rome.”

ZACK: 4. No dispute for me with regard to Luke and Mark and Hebrews. The only caveat I would add is that Luke tells us his testimony was based on eyewitnesses, which almost certainly included apostles. Also church history seems to indicate that Mark's account is St Peter's account, and Hebrews came from Paul. So the acceptance of those letters is not based on authorship, but it is based on direct Apostolic origin / oversight.

5.1 Of course, I agree that the church did have to make a decision, but at a practical level; where there is disagreement, there has to be a decision.

JOE: We agree that the Church recognized what was Scripture. It is not that the books became inspired once the Church declared them so. But the Church had to make the decision on which books were inspired as opposed to those that were not. She does the same thing with traditions, determining which are apostolic and which are not. In either case, the Church can not just give her best guess on it. She has to be infallibly certain, so that the faithful can know without scruple what indeed is God-breathed. Catholic Bishops met in successive local synods and Councils to determine this. And Protestants by and large take it for granted today, because they live in the world where the Bible is just ready to purchase at a book store with a table of contents. It was not so clear for Christians in the early centuries. There was disagreement on whether Hebrews, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, James, Jude, and Apocalypse ought to be recognized as divine revelation.

On the other hand, there is evidence that Clement’s letters, Barnabas, and the Didache were thought by some to be divine revelation. This is not a trivial point of history, it is crucial for Christians to know with certainty which books are God-breathed and which are not. The canon was settled under Pope Damasus I at the Council of Rome in 382, and then reaffirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397. It was again reaffirmed by Pope Innocent I in 405, and at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. Martin Luther took out Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (Apocalypse), and out them in an appendix. This caused the Council of Trent to place a dogmatic stamp on the New Testament canon, which reaffirmed what all the aforementioned Synods, Councils, and Popes had decreed. Every Protestant today accepts that list without any scruple or hesitation.

ZACH: 5.2. We have ample reason to believe any specific council could have gotten it wrong; not only do we agree that Marcion was very wrong in his truncated view of Canon, but Trent's dogmatic declaration of Canon would disagree regarding the Deuterocannon with Laodicea, as well as the councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, and the Gelasian decree (as do Protestants but for opposing reasons). Not to mention how The Fifth Lateran Council explicitly contradicts the Council of Basel, justifying this by Ephesus and Chalcedon, as well as overturning the Sacrosancta Decree from the Council of Constance, and condemning the Council of Pisa and declaring everything it had done null and void.

Councils of men can get it wrong and they have.

JOE: Ecumenical Councils, with oversight from the Roman Pontiff, can always override local and regional Synods, and this has happened throughout history. The Council of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage all have the same canon as mentioned at the Council of Trent. And the Council of Trent takes precedence over the local Synod of Laodicea.

ZACH: 5.3. Simply put, Canon exists because God spoke through holy men. It is helpful for the church to recognize what is canon, but their recognition is just that, and is subject to all the failings of fallible men. And to be fair, Protestants agree with nearly all of the determinations of Canon and the reasoning a of these councils, minus the deuterocannon, in which we agree with Laodecia, as well as Origen, Melito of Sardis,

Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzen, Hilary of Poitier, Epiphanius of Salamis, Irenaus, Tertullian, John of Damascus, and Gregory the Great.

JOE: It is not simply a matter of Protestants coincidentally agreeing with the Church regarding the New Testament canon. It is a matter of whether or not the Church is infallibly certain in its determination, or is there potential room for error? Is it possible that Jude is not divine revelation, but that the Didache is divine revelation? We would say absolutely not, there is no room for error whatsoever. The Protestant really can not make the same claim. They have to hope that the Church got it right on that issue. This is what I mean when I say Protestants take this matter for granted. An extrabiblical authority was needed to determine with certainty which books were truly divinely inspired and which ones were not, and there can not be one iota of doubt in that regard.

ZACH: 6. You said "a minor point is the usage of the world infallible. It is more appropriate to say inspired and inerrant". But no, we may actually disagree here. Holy Scripture as St Peter taught, comes from God Himself, and is therefore inspired. Because Holy Scripture comes from God, it can never err or be in error because God cannot, therefore it is infallible. Because it cannot err, it does not, therefore it is inerrant. I'm not sure if you would deny the infallibility of Holy Scripture, but claiming that the words of God (as St Peter calls Scripture, or God-Breathed per St. Paul) can possibly be in error sounds problematic to say the least.

JOE: It is legitimately a minor point. Inerrancy means it is free from error because it is inspired, which means God is the author. Infallibility means a decision by man is protected from error because God is the one protecting him from making an error.

ZACH: 7.1. With regard to the conditional clause "eite" in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, by definition, the use of either/or means that the source of "tradition" in question does not matter; if word of mouth, fine, but if letter, also fine. Just as in your coffee shop example, if you taught me baptism both in the coffee shop and by letter, the source does not matter. But if you taught me baptism by letter, and the Perpetual of virginity of Mary in person, then the source matters a great deal; you would need me to hold fast to both the coffee shop conversation AND the letter. Rome argues that both sources of tradition must be fully accepted, as they have important distinctions; Rome teaches a both / and conditional. I think you are translating either/or as both / and, which is simply not the same.

JOE: Exactly. If I spoke to you about baptism in person and then wrote you an email, and said to abide by all I taught either in conversation or through email, you would be expected to abide by all of it. I may have included important notes and clarifying details in person that were not on the email. If St. Paul proclaims that Our Lady had no other children and was a perpetual virgin, then his hearers are bound to hold fast to that teaching. Anything he taught, either in person, or by letter. How do we know what the Apostles taught orally? We find testimony of it through the Fathers, as I previously cited for you several examples, and have also included some in the quotes above. Unwritten, orally proclaimed teachings that were handed down and protected through the succession of Bishops in their instruction. Christians are bound to these. In the event there is ever a question or dispute, the Church can step in to make a binding ruling. The problem is that every time a Father says they received a doctrine handed down from the teachings of the Apostles, you choose to say it is not apostolic if it does not agree with your private interpretation of Scripture.

ZACH:7.2. Additionally, if no one wrote down the coffee shop conversation and it was lost to history, but we have the letter, then holding to the letter is the only way to satisfy the either/or conditional. If Rome can produce what Saint Paul specifically taught to the Thessalonians orally, this conversation would be different. But no one has preserved the actual words taught by the apostles orally outside of Holy Scripture. Rome may claim certain snippets from the fathers count as fragments of Holy Tradition that together with scripture constitute the deposit of faith, but even in the fathers, none of these fragments actually trace back to a specific apostle or their teaching at a specific time and place. So Scripture has a pedigree of manuscripts that are nearly universally accepted by the church and go back almost to the time of the apostles nearly verbatim, but "oral tradition" has a smattering of sometimes contradicting teachings that show up later and are not universally accepted until sometimes much later. So yes, I think Scripture Alone is the only sure way of actually satisfying 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

JOE: But the good news is it was not lost to history. The Fathers wrote a plethora of material and spoke about teachings they received from the Apostles, some of which were not written down, or in some cases are only implicitly mentioned in Scripture. I have noted these already, and again, some have been reiterated in the quotes of the Fathers mentioned above, especially in regards to infant baptism, heretics not needing to be rebaptized, Sunday replacing the Sabbath as the day of worship, and commemorating the feast days of martyrs, just to name a few. These are binding teachings that Christians must believe to abide by the teachings of Our Lord and the Apostles.

ZACH: 8. You said "we do not have any record in Scripture of an Apostle or prophet saying, 'Scripture will be the sole authority one day once public revelation ceases,' or, 'You must listen to what we teach orally under God’s inspiration, but eventually all of it will be put into writing and then that will serve as your sole ultimate authority.' ”

JOE: You did admit that Scripture does not teach explicitly that it alone is the sole authority, yes. However, these are related points that are just as pressing. Since the Christians of the first century received divine revelation through two sources, which all sides ought to admit, there ought to be a clear reference to a teaching indicating that Christians in succeeding generations will only need to know the written portion, assuming that anything essential that was preached orally will have found its way into writing. I maintain that a deduction of points should not suffice for such a foundational topic. The citation to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not help matters any more. Here is the passage: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.” Let’s examine this a bit.

You argue that only Scripture is described as being God-breathed. Yet, as I have cited previously, St. Paul says his oral preaching is rightly recognized as the Word of God as he is preaching it, in 1 Thess 2:13. “And we continually thank God because, when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as the true word of God—the word which is now at work in you who believe.” Since it is “the true word of God,” this means it is God-breathed. We can not separate the two phrases, “God breathed” and “true word of God.” For God only has one Word, He can not contradict Himself. Since St. Paul’s oral preaching is the true word of God, then this means we have another source of divine revelation. If his preaching in any way adds anything to clarifying something written, or expounding on something written, it must be heeded by Christians.

Secondly, if you are citing 2 Timothy 3:16 as teaching or implying Sola Scriptura, that means that when St. Paul wrote this letter to St. Timothy, his intention was to teach him “Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith,” to use your definition. It would have to have the same interpretation then that it does today, because otherwise you would have two different interpretations. But St. Paul could not be teaching this at the time he composed the letter, because he was still giving oral preaching at this time which was also divine revelation and which his hearers were bound to. That is the conundrum for the Protestant position.

Thirdly, the passage at face value is perfectly in harmony with Catholic doctrine concerning Sacred Scripture. It is God-breathed, it is useful for instruction and correction and training in righteousness, so that we can be complete and fully equipped for good works. It is exceedingly useful for all these things. At face value, we have no problem whatsoever with this. The Protestant, however, has the problem of ignoring when the Fathers mention doctrines (like Baptismal Regeneration and Infant Baptism, among others) that they say explicitly were taught the preaching of the Apostles, and the Protestant decides to say they got it wrong and do not need to abide by it.

Fourthly, this letter is directed to a specific individual, St. Timothy, who happens to be a Bishop. That means the literal context is that the “man of God” being referenced by St. Paul are bishops, successors to the Apostles, who have the duty of faithfully guarding and expounding upon God-breathed Scripture. This is perfectly harmonious with the testimony of the Fathers, as cited at length above, who teach that to know a proper understanding of Scripture, or any point of Christian doctrine for that matter, one must have recourse to the Church that has the succession of Bishops.

Fifthly, many things assist in making the Christian complete and fully equipped, as the context itself shows in 2 Timothy. Sacred Scripture is also useful in this regard.

Sixthly, if Scripture alone equips the man of God and makes him complete, and one Protestant claims it teaches infant baptism but another says it does not, which one is the man of God?

Seventhly, Scripture itself gives us the witness of Apostles and those in leadership calling a council together to make a determination on a matter of doctrine (Acts 15). “And after engaging these men in sharp debate, Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question… So the apostles and elders met to look into this matter.” Their decision was binding, and still stands to this day. It is not even up for discussion. This shows us a template for how the Church deals with doctrinal disputes. Scripture may or may not be directly utilized, since it is useful to this regard. But the Apostles and those in leadership do not just debate Bible verses back and forth. And they certainly do not splinter and initiate new denominations.

Let us exegete 2 Timothy 3:16-17 closer, since this seems to be the single strongest passage that Protestants have to try to support Sola Scriptura. The context shows that St. Paul is not interested in discussing the role that Scripture plays as an authority, or its relationship to Sacred Tradition or Church authority. There is no intention of discussing whether Scripture is the sole or supreme authority for Christians. St. Paul’s sole intention appears to be that inspired Scripture is profitable and useful to equip the man of God for good works. There is no mention at all concerning revelation, epistemology, ecclesiology, etc.

The mechanism presented by the Protestant rubric of private interpretation shows that “men of God” in each distinct denomination have their own unique understanding of how to interpret God-breathed Scripture.

Thus, they can never have full certainty if their interpretation is correct. They will each maintain it is correct until someone can prove to them otherwise, since their interpretation becomes its own self Magisterium in the court of appeals. The context of 2 Timothy 2-3 shows that many things are profitable for St. Timothy: virtuous Christian living, trustworthy leaders to teach, oral preaching, the guidance of the Holy Ghost, saintly models to inspire us, and of course prayer. St. Paul could have used the term “sufficient” when discussing Scripture, but instead he used “profitable” or “useful,” implying one of many things to assist the Christian in doing good works. Sacred Scripture is a trustworthy source because it is God-breathed, and so it is “useful” to help a man of God practice good works and thus live a holy life.

The Catholic Church holds Sacred Scripture with the absolute highest esteem. Pope Leo XIII taught, “For the sacred Scripture is not like other books. Dictated by the Holy Spirit, it contains things of the deepest importance… For all the books in their entirety have been written under the dictation of the Holy Spirit… For by His supernatural power He so stimulated and move them to write down faithfully, only those things which He Himself ordered, otherwise He could not Himself be the author of the whole of Sacred Scripture.” The Vatican Council of 1870 infallibly taught, “This supernatural revelation is contained in the written books… from the apostles themselves by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and have been transmitted as it were from hand to hand.”

I have already cited 1 Thessalonians 2:13, but for the sake of comparison, “And we continually thank God because, when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as the true word of God—the word which is now at work in you who believe.” St. Paul’s oral teaching was inspired just as were his written letters. God inspired his words when he preached them, which is why St. Paul can command they be obeyed just as his letters. 2 Thessalonians 2:15, “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” While it is highly possible that there was overlap between the two, it is also evident that there are items in his oral preaching that were not included in his written, otherwise it would be superfluous to command both forms be obeyed. Since oral revelation is an additional source of inspired revelation from the Holy Spirit, then ipso facto Scripture can not be the sole authority.

Since Our Lord promises to send the Spirit to lead His Church into all truth (John 16:13) and to remain with her in her teaching until the end of time (Matthew 18:18-20) and that the gates of hell will not prevail against her (Matthew 16:18), then we know He can assuredly protect the transmission of the oral teachings of the Apostles. And the Fathers precisely say this is what transpired. If their testimony and doctrines disagree with the Protestant, then the Protestant must discern whether or not they are in fact upholding correct teaching.

ZACH: 9. You've said "This leads to some important questions" so let me answer them in order

JOE: We now have seen that what is preserved after the death of the Apostles are their writings and their unwritten teachings. The only difference is you choose to disagree with the unwritten teachings if they do not make sense of your private interpretations of the writings. But that would mean it is not the unwritten teachings that are at fault. Rather, we ought to discern whether or not our interpretation is faulty. Oral teachings were indeed preserved, as the Fathers continually said. And even Protestant historians admit that the Fathers did in fact believe this. I quoted several above in regards to St. Irenaeus, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Augustine. This was their understanding, that we had to abide by Sacred Scripture, the unwritten traditions of the Apostles, and that the way to abide by it was to belong to the Church which had succession by virtue of her bishops back to St. Peter and the Apostles. You may deny that the authority of the apostles could be passed down, but the Fathers did not deny that. In fact, they charged such individuals as being in schism for separating from it. You may say the Fathers are not infallible, but Our Lord’s words are a guarantee that the truth will be guided and guarded by His Church, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers is itself an infallible witness.

ZACH: 9.2. You asked "how can [Scripture] teach it is the sole authority on matters of faith when it needs an extra biblical authority to teach us which writings constitute divinely inspired revelation?"

JOE: I have responded to this above. The issue is that there were epistles that were debated, and the Church had to put the foot down and make a determination. Simple as that. And once it was made, it was made. No Christian today has the freedom to wonder if the Didache should be included, or if Jude should be removed. The Romans may have not needed a council to tell them St. Paul’s letter was authoritative, but Christians as a whole needed a council to them what was officially going to be included in the canon as a binding decision.

ZACH: 9.3. You asked "how can [Scripture] teach it is the sole authority when it never reveals to us (implicitly or explicitly) that eventually all of the oral teachings of the Apostles which are the Word of God will in some fashion be confined to writing, and that this will occur once the last Apostle dies?"

JOE: There is a body of oral teaching and it may have cross over with the written word in some ways, yet in other ways provide valuable information not explicitly or implicitly in the written word. But as St. Paul said, we are bound to all of it. The Apostolic teachings are preserved in the New Testament and in the testimony of the Fathers and in the authoritative decrees of the Councils.

ZACH: 10. You had some additional questions, so I'll answer. Answering these in short form, happy to have longer discussion as needed.

10.1. "How do we know when public divine revelation ceased?"

Hebrews 1,2, and 6 teach us that the revelation of Christ came via his apostles. With the death of the Apostles is the closure of the apostolic witness.

JOE: This is still an assumption with no direct Scriptural evidence. Scripture says the revelation came through His Apostles, but as we have both agreed, some revelation came from men who were not Apostles, but rather were instructed by or discipled by the Apostles. Scripture nowhere says once the last Apostle dies, public revelation will cease. This belief comes from the tradition of the early Church, even if Protestants do not want to admit this.

ZACH: 10.2. "Do you believe Infant Baptism is a dogma of divine revelation, a teaching of Our Lord and the Apostles, or is it a heresy, a tradition of men? "

JOE: If it is a false teaching, a tradition of men, then it would be a heresy. If one held to it, such a person would be a heretic. To say it is a distortion that shows up early, prove it. Show us the correct teaching in the post apostolic era. Otherwise we are left with St. Irenaeus teaching it, a martyr, who was taught the faith by St. Polycarp. St. Polycarp in turn learned the faith from St. John the Apostle. St. Hippolytus, Origen, and St. Augustine all say infant baptism was taught by the Apostles.

ZACH: 10.3. "Where does Scripture teach that the teachings contained in the oral preaching of the Apostles would eventually be confined to Scripture along as the sole rule moving forward? "

JOE: The testimony and witness of the Fathers, and the words of Our Lord, demonstrate that Scripture is not the only preserved Apostolic teaching.

ZACH: 10.4. "Does the Protestant model of denominationalism (and non-denominationalism) under the Sola Scriptura rubric provide a mechanism whereby leaders can bind doctrines or call Councils (such as Acts 15) to officially settle disputes?"

JOE: And yet, history from the earliest era shows us that Councils were a norm for the Christian Church. As soon as the persecutions ceased, Councils were regularly being held to discuss doctrine and refute heresies. This is because the model of Scripture shows us what to do when there is doctrinal chaos or confusion. A Council is called, convened by Bishops, to make determinations that seem good to them and the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28). This is the clear template from Scripture.

ZACH: 10.5. "Is contraception a sin, and is your church able to authoritatively teach and instruct its people that it is a sin which offends God? If a pastor teaches it is not a sin, is he a heretic?"

JOE: I would give you strong fraternal caution here. You are giving your personal opinion on the topic of coitus interreuptus and hormonal birth control, but when teachers are leading a flock into how to live a godly life and avoid sin, they need to know with absolute certainty that they are teaching correct doctrine as it pertains to morals. Historic Christianity always taught contraception was a sin, and sin offends God. Sin is the reason why Our Lord went to the cross. When Protestantism was founded in the 16th century with Sola Scriptura, that teaching continued unscathed. The first ones to deviate in history were the Anglicans in 1930. After that, every single Protestant denomination caved, one by one. The only Church that maintains the 2000 year teaching is the Catholic Church.

CLOSING:

With all this in mind, here are some questions:

Since it has been shown that Apostolic teaching existed in the first century with oral preaching and written letters, and since Our Lord promised to be with His Church and to send the Holy Spirit to lead her into truth, and since the early Fathers make statements concerning teachings that were delivered by the Apostles (including Infant Baptism, from the earliest era), will you concede that there is a possibility that Infant Baptism was taught by the Apostles as the Fathers said? If so, would you admit to a possibility that there could be a flaw in your personal interpretation, or that of the Reformed Baptist church? Is it possible that the early Church was correct in Infant Baptism and Baptismal Regeneration? Is it possible that the Reformed Baptist interpretation is missing something in regards to these teachings? Or is it a certainty that the early Fathers who taught these doctrines were wrong, and the Reformed Baptist church is absolutely correct in its understanding of Scripture?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ZACH: Thanks again Joe. I will try to keep this less than 19 pages, but hopefully give a thorough response.

1. I do want to address a point you made later up front; you said "Inerrancy means it is free from error because it is inspired, which means God is the author. Infallibility means a decision by man is protected from error because God is the one protecting him from making an error."

I think you're asserting that by definition, only the decisions of man can be infallible, yes?

If so, it may be a minor terminological disagreement, but I do disagree on the definition; The first words of the Catholic encyclopedia say "In general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure;" and this is also is a standard dictionary definition of the word. There are those who assert that the scripture is capable of error (fallible) even if it is free from error (inerrant), and that belief seems borderline heretical; Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:16 that scripture is God breathed, and God cannot breathe error. I know you've already stated you believe scripture is free from error, but do you believe it is capable of error? That is, by the general definition of the word infallible, is the scripture infallible? If not, then no that is not a minor disagreement.

2. You said "There is circular reason occurring here, or assuming things to be true without having first established why it's true"

2.1. In a way, I don't deny that; we are approaching each person's epistemological ground of Truth, and the closer you get to an epistemological foundation, the more circular the reasoning gets. At some point, there's an unquestioned foundation of why things are true; unquestionable because to question them is to subject them to a higher standard, and they are the highest standard. Not to say we can't discuss it, but if it actually is the foundation, it can't be proved by something else; it is the Normata Normans, the norm which norms all norms. The Norming Norm is true because it is, so all logic around it sounds circular. The Bible alone is close to a foundational belief for me as it is for most Protestants. For Romanists, the authority of the church is in that position; Sola ecclesia. Because all Roman Catholics believe that scripture is only infallibly interpreted by the church, this means the church has authority over scripture. So we have to find a way to have this discussion while understanding that we are challenging deeply held foundational beliefs.

2.2. That said, I've usually started with something more like an introductory position; I've stated my position in (hopefully) clear terms and without defense up front, so that when I defend it later, I can refer to be clear articulation of my position. I'm happy to do that again here:

What God says is the ground of truth; our Epistemological foundation and the norming Norm.

Scripture is the only infallible and inerrant preservation of the Apostolic transmission of Christ's teaching, which is by definition the words of God.

Thus, Sola Scriptura is the only way to follow scripture telling us to give heed to apostolic teaching

Now, these statements may sound like assuming something to be true without establishing it. But this is simply an articulation of my position, not a defense yet.

3. Let me give a longer defense of why Scripture alone is the correct default position.

3.1. When the early church was in a position to recognize what was Scripture and what wasn't, they had the following at their disposal: written documents that (1) had verbatim Apostolic words (2) from identified Apostolic authors (3) to specific churches (4) which did not contradict scripture (5) and were already in use in churches.

All 5 of the above are true of Scripture.

If we applied the same standard to any specific "oral tradition", all would fail the first 3 automatically; there are no specific words of the Apostles recorded outside of Scripture and none of the "oral traditions" are traceable to a specific Apostolic author or to a specific church where it was taught. Even now (as I understand), there does not exist a definitive body of "oral" Apostolic teachings as found in the early fathers. Whatever so called "oral traditions" are said to exist outside scripture exist somewhere in various smatterings across the father's writings. At the risk of sounding disrespectful, this is almost akin to saying "eh, they are out there somewhere". But Scripture has been (6) specifically defined, (7) meticulous preserved, (8) and recognized by churches councils across time. None of this can be said for teaching that is said to be Apostolic that is also extra scriptural. This means to even consider whether non-scriptural sources are Apostolic, we have to adopt a less reliable standard than we have for Scripture.

3.2. I don't think it can be disputed that the supposed non-scriptural Apostolic teaching that does exist comes from uninspired, fallible (sometimes errant) writings of fallible men. No one claims early church writings are inspired, and it's not even in question that most of the fathers were fallible men; Romanists only claim the Pope to be capable of infallibility, so none of the early writers were infallible, much less their specific writings. And I doubt that Rome wants to declare the early church fathers writings to be entirely inerrant. So, in the smattering of uninspired, fallible, likely partially errant writings from the fathers, on what basis do we decide what actually is Apostolic tradition? It must be limited only to those things the father's claim are Apostolic tradition, and even then, it cannot be the father's referencing the scripture; if a father believes their interpretation of scripture is apostolic, we already have the scripture as our standard and the scripture can be examined as well as their interpretation. And if any particular father cites even 1 "tradition" where he is in error, we have reason to mistrust that particular father. So for these supposed claims to Apostolic that are specifically claimed to be extra biblical tradition where the father has never made an erroneous claim of this type, how can we judge whether the claim is true? It cannot be on the basis of scripture, because it claimed that this tradition is as authoritative as scripture. Essentially, all we have is that particular uninspired fallible father's claim; we must believe it simply because he said so. Whereas the apostles did possess infallibility in writing scripture, and the scripture is inspired, infallible and inerrant. Again, we have to adopt a less reliable standard than we have for Scripture.

3.4. We have very good reason to expect the specific words of the Apostles to be written down.

There is no inspired revelation of the Old Testament outside of what is recorded in Scripture. Yes, much of what was revealed first came orally, but all of it was then written down, and often by the specific command of God. All of the preserved revelation of God from the Old Testament is written down; there is now no oral tradition for the OT. This means that, by default, the standard for the OT is Sola Scriptura.

Demonstrating the above, Our Lord condemns the Pharisee's view of the oral Mosaic tradition around Korban and points instead to written scripture in Matthew 15 and says "thus you nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition"

Again, what does the Prophet say in Isaiah 8:20? "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn." What law? Moses written law. What testimony? As God spoke in verse 16: "Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples." The bound up and written testimony of God. That is the standard God gives Isaiah to give God's people. This is why Paul can tell the Corinthians "not to go beyond what is written" in 1st Corinthians 4:6; it is the normal pattern for God's revelation to be written down, and for his people to learn not to go beyond what has been written down. It would appear that God's people were so faithful in this area, that the modern invention of the codex (or book as opposed to a scroll) may have been invented or primarily popularized by Christians. Why? Because they wanted the written word.

Frankly, this is why the idea that there were oral traditions that were never written down seems unbelievable. The idea that God's people who were people of the book, to whom the entire Old Testament was received as written scripture, who were commanded to write down what God has spoken, who meticulously preserved the written word of the New Testament, would simply neglect to write down the actual words of the apostles for teachings that are contained nowhere else, I kind of find unlikely at best. It's like trying to argue the priest just didn't bless the Eucharist at Mass that week; that doesn't happen, because that's the whole point of the Mass.

3.5. I'll give an updated exegesis 2 Peter 1:29 here. I've already given my views of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Timothy 3:16 elsewhere, so I'll just respond to those comments later. We know that Peter wrote 2 Peter before his impending death; and what does Peter describe as his object in his last letter? 2 Peter 1:14-21 "since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. [15] And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things. [16] For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. [17] For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased, [18] we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. [19] And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, [20] knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. [21] For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

In his last letter, Peter, wanting his readers to be able to recall when he is gone, points them not to oral tradition, not to eyewitness testimony, but to a more sure word of prophecy; Scripture. More confirmed than what? More sure than even the eyewitness testimony of the transfiguration; scripture is men speaking from God. If scripture is more sure, more fully confirmed, than eye witness testimony from the Apostle themselves, then it is certainly more confirmed than vague secondhand references to so-called Apostolic tradition from uninspired and fallible men who do not cite where their Apostolic tradition comes from. And I think it is incumbent upon us to subject what is less sure to what is more sure. Based on the points I've made above, the surety we can have in scripture compared to extra scriptural tradition is not even close. The scripture is definitely apostolic, anything else is questionable at best.

3.6. So why is Sola scriptura the default position?

Because it is the clear testimony of the Apostles.

Any other extra biblical tradition

(1) Does not preserve verbatim Apostolic words (2) Cannot be identified which Apostle taught

(3) Cannot be traced as being taught to a specific church

(4) Many contradict scripture (I realize I'm claiming this without proving it, but isn't a discussion about any particular tradition)

(5) Difficult if not impossible to prove that churches believed it; many show up hundreds of years later

(6) Is not specifically defined

(7) Was not meticulous preserved

(8) Is not recognized by churches councils (as a single body; many "traditions" have never been dogmatically confirmed)

(9) Comes from uninspired, fallible, and sometimes errant authors

(10) Does not follow the pattern of the Old Testament (all of the Old Testament Revelation is scripture) or expectations of writing down God's revelation.

(11) Is by definition a less sure word of prophecy at best.

4. Some quick responses to openings comments.

4.1. You said "the natural reading of [2 Thessalonians 2:15] would lead one to ask, 'Where can I find their letters? Where can I find what they taught by word?'".

And yes, I agree. We agree about the letters (of the NT), we disagree about what's taught by word; Protestants hold that all the oral teaching needed is now contained in Scripture.

4.2. You quoted Matthew 28:20 and said "This shows that the oral teachings of the Apostles which are divine revelation will be protected in a special way so that future generations can know what is contained within it."

Agreed; this is quite literally the function of Scripture. It is truly incredible to read the history of the preservation of scripture, but this cannot be said about so-called oral tradition.

4.3. You said "Sola Scriptura is not the only way to give heed to apostolic teaching, otherwise there would have been no need for the Council of Jerusalem"

but I think this is an apples / oranges problem. The council of Jerusalem was an APOSTOLIC council before scriptural revelation was complete; in fact, I think none of the NT scripture was written by then. Sola scriptura is a relevant rule when it becomes the only remaining source of apostolic teaching and that only happened once scripture was written and the apostles were gone. You said "If [the early church] are unanimous in a teaching, then it belongs to the apostolic tradition. If there is dispute, the Church has authority to make a determination." But the council of Jerusalem cannot be used to speak to that issue for the reasons above.

4.4.

You said "If the Fathers teach with moral unanimity, then it is enough. God would not have allowed for a heresy to be disseminated in the early Church with consistency"

But I suppose my question should be this; says who? 2 Timothy, 2 Peter, and 1 John all promise that false teachers will arise from within the church. Paul's letter to the Galatians confirms that factions are absolutely inevitable. I don't have any problem agreeing that when our Lord says "I will never leave you or forsake you" that means Christ will always correct his church; the Gates of Hell won't stand against her. But this doesn't promise wrong teachings won't arise and stick around for some period of time. They called him Athanasius Contra Mundum because it seems the whole world was Arian and against Athanasius. So Arianism was prevalent for something like 50 years between Nicaea and Constantinople. Even Liberus, the bishop of Rome, was given over to Arianism. Does that not count because it was corrected within 50 years? What of the Papal Pornocracy / Saeculum obscurum and it's eight popes within 60 years; the control of the papacy by a vile aristocratic family? Does that not count because it was not early enough? What about the "schism" of the "orthodox"? The issues between east and west did not arise overnight, but nearly the entire Eastern Church went into "schism"./ Does that not count because the "true church" was preserved in Rome? What of the so-called Babylonian captivity of the church or Avignon Papacy for 70 years? Or how long was the abuse of a indulgences growing up until the point of Johann Tetzel? How many Church fathers have taught things now labeled heresy? How many councils have overturned councils and synods?

What of the heresy of modernism, as Rome appears to descend into heresy at every level under Pope francis? Has this been going on since Vatican 1? It would appear that the history of the church is much more of error and repentance, and the Holy Savior who is always correcting his church, much like our own individual stories of sanctification. The idea that "God would not have allowed for a heresy to be disseminated in the early Church with consistency" seems to be neither consistent with scripture nor with the history of the church.

5. With regard to Justin Martyr;

5.1. Like I said before, I'm certainly no scholar, and I'm not very well read on the nuances of Justin Martyr's theology. Happy to admit I'm a very lay person with regard to this topic.

5.2. I don't think it's the consensus of scholars that Justin actually means baptismal Regeneration, especially some Protestant scholars that I've come across. And frankly, I give more deference to Protestant scholars on the issues of church history than Catholic, and not just cause I'm Protestant. Honest Catholics are by necessity bound by Rome's dogmas regarding what the fathers taught. That means they approach church history with a pre-commitment to read it Catholic-ly. For Justin to not teach Baptismal Regeneration would be significantly more serious for a Catholic. Not to say Protestants aren't also biased and can tend to read church history Protestant-ly, but if it turns out Justin did teach baptismal regeneration, for. Protestants, it's just one more error that shows up in church history. So no, I'm not likely to do as you've suggested and " at least let it be known that the earliest testimonies of Christian martyrs in history disagree with your interpretation, so that people are made aware.". I'll mention that it's possible that Baptismal Regeneration what he was talking about, and some scholars disagree, and my very cursory read doesn't make me think that's necessarily what he's saying.

5.3.

You've said "This leaves us with the question on who ought to be trusted more: pastors centuries removed from the Apostolic era, or martyrs who were teaching what was handed to them a generation after the Apostles" but who gets the decide authoritatively what Justin was teaching? Has a church council authoritatively declared a dogmatic interpretation of Justin's views? Is there a unanimous consent among the fathers than Justin meant something specific? I think the answer to those questions is no. So it sounds like you are capable of privately reading and deciding what Justin Martyr meant. If we can read and understand Justin Martyr's more obscure writing, there's no reason to think we cannot read and understand the more plain scripture.

5.4. And Justin isn't referring to some unwritten oral Apostolic tradition, he referred to 2 passages of Scripture; John 3:5 and Isaiah 1:16-20. And by God's grace, and the hard work of Protestant Reformers, we can actually read those scriptures in our own language and understand them.

When Jesus speaks to Nicodemus in John 3, Jesus is expressly talking about two births; we know this because his first comment to Nicodemus is "you must be born AGAIN" in verse 3. So in verse 5, when Jesus says "unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" , being born of Water is the first birth. Jesus goes on in verse 6 to describe being born of the flesh and the spirit. And verse 8 makes it clear that the second birth is the birth from the spirit. What then is the water birth? Being born of the flesh. That's why it's contrasted with being born of the spirit. John 3 just isn't about baptism. The same is true of first Peter 3:21. Many would like to quote the part that says "baptism now saves you" but that's not where Peter ends his thought. He says" not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God". Getting wet and removing dirt from your body does not regenerate you Ex opere operato, but the answer of a good conscience toward God; I.e. FAITH. So it's entirely possible something like this is what Justin had in view.

5.5.

At the end of the day, especially given what I've already discussed in section 3, I'm just not enough of a scholar to know, and I'm just not going to be deeply affected by whether Justin taught baptismal regeneration or not. It's an interesting artifact of history, but because I subscribe to the formal sufficiency and intelligibility of scripture, I believe the scripture corrects Justin, and not the other way around. Scripture can be rightly understood, and I'm far from the only Protestant across history who subscribes to the interpretation I provided in section 5.4, or who denies baptismal regeneration. That doesn't make all interpretations valid, or even most; you said "The reality is, either interpretation could be plausible, but only one can be true." And I fully believe that. I just don't believe Justin, or any other fallible man has final authority; like a math equation in a math textbook, the right answer is right because it is, not merely because a teacher said so.

5.6. Referring back to sections 5.1 and 5.5, you might be right about these corrections about Justin's various views, but you might be wrong. I'm not nearly enough of a scholar to know, I would have to read more scholars on the subject, and I have a slight mistrust for Catholic scholarship. I provided few things I read briefly from Protestant researchers, but I'm really not going to be affected that much. Justin was uninspired, Justin was fallible, and I think we have reason to believe Justin was errant in some areas. But Scripture is infallible, inspired, and inerrant, and we must read Justin through the lens of scripture and not the other way around.

5.7. You've said "This underscores the real issue here" and I do actually agree there. You seem to cast great deal of aspersions on what you called "private interpretation" (which of course borrows from the language of 2 Peter 1, which is about the inspiration of scripture, not its interpretation), but it sounds like what you're actually doing is denying formal sufficiency, and insisting we need an authoritative interpretation. But this seems to stand against the very way God made the world; true things are true because they are, not because someone declared them to be. Physics, scientists, and astronomers are not correct because of the consensus on the scientific community; in fact the consensus of the scientific community has often led to ruin. Scientific theories are true when they are true because they are. Nuclear physics aren't true because everyone agreed, they are true because when you put it into use, the atomic bomb goes boom. The scripture is true because God is true and He has spoken. When Romans 3:4 says "Let God be true and everyman a liar", we should believe that. Peter says "we should obeyed God rather than men" and we should believe that. The fathers are either right or wrong and God's truth in scripture corrects them, not the other way round. Any truth from any era at any time can and should be held up to the standard of scripture.

5.8. You've mentioned deferring to the judgement of the early church because they were " teaching what was handed to them a generation after the Apostles" as well as being " Saints and martyrs who helped defend the dogmas of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ and the Hypostatic Union against heretics."

But deferring to the early church because they were only a generation away makes the assumption that they actually had direct extra biblical teaching oral teaching from the apostles; you assume they would have known better because they were taught more directly. But that's assuming the whole subject of the debate! Yes, if we assume they correctly preserved extra biblical direct Apostolic teaching, we should listen to them. But we can't just assume that. Just look at the churches at Galatia and Cornith; planted by Apostles, listened to direct Apostolic teaching, and went way off track. How many other early fathers were later condemned his heretics? What about Clement of Alexandria or his pupil Origen? Brilliant men, living something like a hundred years from the apostles, later condemned as Heretics by popes. If the Berean Church in Acts 17:11 can be commended because they "examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true", I think we should probably also examine early church fathers for the same reason.

Martyrdom and defense of the faith on other subjects is also not enough reason to simply assume claims to extra biblical Apostolic teaching are true. The Protestant church has had plenty of martyrs, as well as members of non-Christian groups who have died for their false faith. And we know it's possible for spiritual Giants to stand strong in one area, and it completely fail in another; look at the example of King David. Mighty Man of God, a man after God's own heart, falls into adultery and murder. Martyrs and mighty men can err; if the Berean Church can subject even the apostles to analysis of scripture, it behooves us to do the same for Martyrs and mighty Men.

Now I'm happy to grant that the credentials of those in the early church give us reason to study what they have written. They truly were Martyrs and Giants of the early faith, and it benefits us to understand what they said! But all of them are uninspired, fallible, and likely sometimes errant. Read them, yes. Necessarily accept everything they said? Certainly not.

5.9. You said "Using your own logic, if there is teaching that shows up 16 centuries after Our Lord and the Apostles, we have to judge that teaching by Scripture and the consensus of the Fathers"

To this I would say 1. absolutely yes and amen, and 2. no definitely not. Any teaching whenever it shows up is judged by the scripture. That's why Baptists practice credo-baptism; it's a return to what the scripture teaches. If we have failed to practice what the scripture teaches, it doesn't matter how long we have failed or how prominent a person previously taught false teaching, we have to return to what the scripture says. But no, the consensus of the Fathers has to be judged by scripture.

5.10.

Regarding baptismal regeneration as the majority view, again as I've confessed, I'm by no means scholar in this area. Happy to defer to the work of other scholars, as I've already mentioned.

Some of these quotes you provided definitely do not necessitate baptismal generation, others sound like they may be providing a more complex relationship between baptism regeneration than straight baptismal Regeneration. But just frankly, I don't find it very worthwhile to spend a lot of time discussing that topic. I'm not well read, I frequently have a slight mistrust Catholic scholarship for reasons I've already mentioned, and even if it were the case, it would just evidence another area where some writers of the church got it wrong early on.

6. Regarding Irenaeus

6.1. No, I'm fairly certain there are a number of scholars who assert that Irenaeus is certainly teaching Jesus lived to be 50 years old. Matthew Ervin may disagree, but I'll let the scholars work that out. It's more than sufficient to say we have reason to not immediately trust everything Irenaeus says, as is true of every uninspired, fallible, likely errant human.

6.2. Regarding Against Heresies 3.5.1, no I don't think I accept your interpretation. It sounds like Irenaeus may be referring to the scripture itself as the tradition from the apostles. And I will certainly follow Irenaeus's advice to "revert to the scriptural proof furnished by the apostles" because Reformed Baptist do have the tradition from the apostles; Scripture.

6.3 Regarding Against Heresies III.1, you said "So St. Irenaeus teaches that divine revelation began with oral preaching, and then secondly came also through written letters, and that this divine revelation is the ground and pillar of our faith. " And I have no disagreement there. But you went on to say "This is exactly the Catholic position. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture is the ground and pillar" but that's not what Irenaeus says. Not only does he indicate that the Gospel preached in public was itself handed down in Scripture, but the direct antecedent of "ground and pillar of our faith" is Scripture. So either the Gospel or the Scripture is the "ground and pillar of our faith". If the Gospel, it was written down. It's odd to try to add "sacred tradition" to that. Again, I'm no Irenaus scholar, but I don't think I agree with your interpretation.

6.4.Regarding Against Heresies III.2, I don't think you can use this extended context against Protestants. I'm not convinced Irenaeus is speaking about a separate tradition that is not in scripture, but even so, Protestants are not "saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles"; we fully submit to every preserved word of the Apostles, and the tradition of Scripture and it's Gospel that did indeed did originate from the apostles and has been preserved by the presbyters. And these people he is criticizing sound like gnostics who reject the apostles and the teachings of Our Lord. Not really applicable to us, we do not.

6.5. Regarding the additional quotes from Irenaeus, and the Protestant scholars you cited, I don't know that I would have so much disagreed with him in the time he was writing it, though like anything, his writings are subject to scripture. But since (and likely even some even during) that time, the accretions that Rome and the East have justified as "tradition" make it impossible to argue as Irenaeus did. And frankly, I would be happy to assert that an early over emphasis on tradition helped lead to worse accretions.

6.6.

Happy to admit that Augustine also placed undue emphasis on "tradition". You'll note that those historians are still Protestant; recognizing what Augustine actually said, but rejecting his view. Many have called the entire Catholic / Protestant debate Augustine versus Augustine, as both sides seem to find things in his writings they glom onto. But given his standard with regard to his own writing, I think it only makes sense to apply that same standard to the writings of any father or any so-called "tradition". So I don't mind praising Augustine when he was very right, and severely criticizing Augustine for when he was very wrong as this is the very thing Augustine asks us to do.

I also don't mind admitting the tradition and the authority of the church ought to be a safeguard to keep us from heresy; just like a sense of normalcy keeps us from drifting into things that are abnormal. But if the entire tradition drifts away from scripture's teachings, at some point we have to shake off unbibilcal accretions and reform ourselves back to scripture.

7. Regarding the Canon of scripture and councils

7.1.You said "Every Protestant today accepts that list without any scruple or hesitation." And I don't much disagree, with the exception of the deuterocanon which was itself disputed for some time. Really, I don't deny or take for granted the hard work that the synods and councils did. Generally speaking, we defer to the judgment of those councils because their reasoning appears to be sound. I disagree with regard to so-called Apostolic traditions, for all the reasons I've listed in section 3. You simply cannot apply the same standard to so-called Apostolic tradition, you have to have a significantly less rigorous standard. Regarding Luther, I do think Luther put them in the back of his Bible. I don't think we have any reason to believe he did not regard them as Canon, though his grumblings are well recorded about them. This is a point historians have discussed at length, but again even if he had, Protestants have no problem simply saying Luther was wrong (as we think he was on other topics)

7.2.

The fact that ecumenical councils can override other councils means that some councils can get it wrong. Which certainly means that has not been unanimity on these issues across time. Not to mention that the Fifth Lateran Council (ecumenical with papal oversight) overrode elements of the council of Basel (ecumenical with papal oversight), the council of Constance (ecumenical with papal oversight), as well as the controversial ecumenical council of Pisa. And they gave their justification by the papal ecumenical council of Chalcedon overriding elements of the papal ecumenical council of Ephesus. So apparently even ecumenical councils with papal oversight can get it wrong.

And no, Rome, Hippo, and Carthage make no explicit mention of the book of Baruch or the Epistle to Jeremiah, as the synod of Laodicea does, as well as Florence and Trent. You may argue this was included in Jeremiah, and I'd be curious to hear what the evidences for that, but I don't think there's a consensus view whether those councils included those two. And if we're going to say and that Florence and Trent merely reasserted what previous councils declared, we have to hold them to the same standard. Simply not mentioning important elements of the deuterocannon is not a negligible oversight; we can't just say "oh well, they meant to include it". Athanasius, Laodicea, and others make specific mention of it, so it's an oversight is notable

7.3. You said "It is a matter of whether or not the Church is infallibly certain in its determination, or is there potential room for error"

And yes, Protestants contend that no counsel of man is infallible. But Catholics claim this as well, because council's override councils, even ecumenical papal councils. We agree that the determination of the New Testament Canon was inerrant, but we agree with many Church fathers that the acceptance of the deuterocannon was in error. You've said "there can not be one iota of doubt in that regard", but this is not a standard even Catholic history can live up to; there appears to have been a great deal of doubt about the deuterocannon up to and including the Middle ages, and I've already included a number of Catholics who rejected the deuterocannon, not the least of which is Pope Gregory the Great himself, as well as Jerome in his translation of the Vulgate.

8. Regarding 2 Thessalonians 2:15

8.1. Again, you assert that either / or means both / and. You make a requirement that Christians must stand firm in both, because you say oral tradition contains teachings entirely absent from Scripture, but for Paul, the source doesn't matter; it's either / or.

8.2. You said "But the good news is it was not lost to history." But outside of Scripture, the actual words of the Apostle's "oral tradition" are lost, as is any information about which apostle taught these things to whom. So to use your example, what we have instead are a few scattered bullet point summaries that are said to have come some coffee shop conversation somewhere with someone Apostolic, but we don't know where or with whom. As I described in section 3, that's a far cry from the criteria applied to scripture.

9. Regarding 2 Timothy 3:16

9.1. You've said "there ought to be a clear reference to a teaching indicating that Christians in succeeding generations will only need to know the written portion, assuming that anything essential that was preached orally will have found its way into writing. I maintain that a deduction of points should not suffice for such a foundational topic"

But between scripture and so-called oral tradition, you maintain vastly different standards for acceptance. I simply disagree, and the burden of proof is on the one claiming Apostolic teaching. Let us simply hold so-called oral tradition to the same standard as scripture for acceptance; taking the 11 points I've outlined in section 3, oral tradition can never meet these requirements. If everything claimed to be oral Apostolic teaching is dubious and cannot meet the same requirements, by default, only Sola scriptura remains.

9.2. I am fine counting Paul's oral teaching as God breathed as well. Let my Catholic brethren produce for us the exact God-breathed words of Paul or any apostle outside of Holy Scripture. You and I both know this cannot be done, so the only God-breathed words that remain are scripture.

9.3. I don't think I or anyone else argues that 2 Timothy 3:16 directly translates to sola scriptura, as some apostles were still living and giving teaching and the Canon of scripture was not closed. But here, at the end of Paul's life and ministry, Paul's emphasis is on scripture. And if we have not preserved Paul's or any other apostles actual oral teaching, only scripture remains as God breathed.

9.4. Regarding this passage being to Timothy as a Man of God, you said "any point of Christian doctrine for that matter, one must have recourse to the Church that has the succession of Bishops."

But this itself is not a claim scripture makes. All throughout the New Testament, Paul and the apostles were writing letters, not merely to pastors or elders, to encourage them to cling to the scripture and Apostolic teaching. What isn't in the scripture is a command to appeal to the succession of bishops on any point of Christian doctrine. That's a claim I fear Romanists make without scriptural support.

9.5. You asked "Scripture alone equips the man of God and makes him complete, and one Protestant claims it teaches infant baptism but another says it does not, which one is the man of God?"

Scripture does have an answer to the question of infant baptism that we can know. If one party teaches a doctrine out of line with scripture, then he is the one in error. I suspect we disagree on whether the issue of infant baptism is a primary issue. As a Reformed Baptist, I would challenge that it is an important Christian issue, but not heretical.

9.6. I don't have any problem looking to Acts 15, or the debate between Paul and Barnabas as examples. The question arises whether the decisions of fallible men are binding on the conscience of every Christian. I simply assert that church councils can be wrong, and when they are wrong, their erroneous decisions are not binding on the consciences of faithful Christians. Christians have a responsibility to be faithful to God's Revelation of Himself in Scripture first and foremost.

9.7. You've said "St. Paul"s sole intention appears to be that inspired Scripture is profitable and useful to equip the man of God for good works [...] St. Paul could have used the term 'sufficient' when discussing Scripture, but instead he used 'profitable' or 'useful,' implying one of many things to assist the Christian in doing good works"

But this really is a diminishment of what Paul is saying. Paul says scripture is able to make the man of God PERFECT and fully equipped for EVERY good work. Paul doesn't just say it's kind of useful; he says it can make you perfect and equipped for every good work. And Paul doesn't mention anything else that can do this, so there's certainly no implication in this text that there are other things to assist the Christian in good works; claiming Paul implies there are other things is just reading something into this text that isn't there. In what is probably his last letter, why does Paul not mention here oral tradition as well to be able to make you perfect? The Protestants have an answer; scripture completes what was taught orally. Just as it did for the Old Testament.

9.8. You've said "The mechanism presented by the Protestant rubric of private interpretation shows that 'men of God' in each distinct denomination have their own unique understanding of how to interpret God-breathed Scripture. Thus, they can never have full certainty if their interpretation is correct. "

This problem is even worse for the Roman Catholic; if we say that we need the magisterium to rule infallibly on what a text means, the Catholic magisterium has only infallibly defined a handful of verses in Scripture. So over the course of 2,000 years, Romanists can barely know for certain what the scripture means at all. Protestants believe we actually can read and understand the scripture, and that there actually is one meaning to every passage of scripture. It's not as though we think it's okay that there are differing opinions, but we recognize this is an inevitability. There might be a myriad of people who do not see it correctly, but that has been true all throughout church history, despite Rome's claims to the contrary; humans err, God and His Word does not. The scripture means what it means, and humans can either understand it or fail to understand it.

9.9. Regarding 2 Thessalonians 2:15, you've said "While it is highly possible that there was overlap between the two, it is also evident that there are items in his oral preaching that were not included in his written, otherwise it would be superfluous to command both forms be obeyed. "

What Rome cannot assert is what overlap there actually was between the two; Rome cannot produce an articulation of Paul's oral teaching to the Thessalonians, so if there is any extensive overlap, Rome simply cannot say. And again, you've evidenced the error I've already pointed out. Paul commands either / or; for Paul the source does not matter. You asserted here that Paul commands both forms to be obeyed; for you both forms are necessary. I fear you contradict Paul.

10. Regarding the short form important questions.

10.1. You've said "We now have seen that what is preserved after the death of the Apostles are their writings and their unwritten teachings"

But their so called unwritten teachings are only kind of sort of preserved. Maybe some bullet point theological assertions that are claimed to be Apostolic with no sources, but again, the clarity of preservation between scripture and so-called unwritten teachings is night and day.

10.2. You've said "the unanimous consent of the Fathers is itself an infallible witness."

But this is not something Scripture ever claims will be true, and I'm not even sure it's something the fathers would claim is true. The unanimous consent of fallible men is about like the unanimous consent of the scientific community; might be good, might be bad, but it doesn't establish truth. In so far as we do have general consensus of the fathers, it certainly something that should be taken seriously, but it is not itself a standard; scripture is. And even if it were true, I doubt Rome can actually find unanimous consent on any issue throughout the early fathers.

10.3. If as you say "Scripture says the revelation came through His Apostles", then with no more apostles, we can have no more revelation.

If the only caveats are scriptures that were produced with the oversight of the apostles, with no more apostles, no more Apostolic oversight. And when Hebrews says God has "spoken to us in these last times through his Son", we have reason to believe that there is no greater Revelation than that of His Son, as provided by the apostles. Yes, this belief is also the tradition of the church, and we concur with that tradition. But the tradition is not what makes it binding; we believe Scripture is.

10.4. You've said "If [infant baptism] is a false teaching, a tradition of men, then it would be a heresy". I think we have to disagree here. Protestants do believe there are primary, secondary, and even tertiary issues, of which only primary issues would make one a heretic. There are obviously some issues that have not been dogmatically defined by Rome, where there is even now room for speculation, so this isn't novel to the Protestant view. We aren't having really an argument from scripture about infant baptism, but I and many others have made that argument in a different context.

10.5.

I have no problem with councils being the norm for the Christian church, and I kind of wish we could return to those in a way. But church councils are predicated on a certain shared understanding and authority structure. If Rome thinks her determinations are always binding, and the Eastern Church disagrees, there may be no sense in having an ecumenical council. Binding councils in scripture such as Acts 15 are predicated on the authority of the Apostles.

10.6. Regarding coitus interreuptus and hormonal birth control, thank you for your caution. I appreciate it as given, but again, whatever Rome or church history has taught has to be subjected to the authority of Scripture. My fraternal caution to my Romanists friends would be to "not go beyond what is written" in Scripture.

11. Regarding your closing questions;

11.1. You asked "will you concede that there is a possibility that Infant Baptism was taught by the Apostles as the Fathers said"

No, I cannot. Infant Baptism is not biblical, and nowhere taught in Scripture.

11.2. You asked "would you admit to a possibility that there could be a flaw in your personal interpretation, or that of the Reformed Baptist church?"

I'm always happy to admit the possiblity of flaws in my understanding of Scripture. If the fathers are uninspired, fallible, sometimes errant men, I certainly am. But the remedy to that flaw is a greater understanding of scripture.

11.3. You asked "Is it possible that the early Church was correct in Infant Baptism and Baptismal Regeneration?"

In the purely statistical possibility sense, of course. It is one of the possibilities. But no, I'm pretty convinced on symbolic believers baptism being what scripture teaches; and if that is true, then the early fathers must have been wrong.

11.4. You asked "Is it possible that the Reformed Baptist interpretation is missing something in regards to these teachings? Or is it a certainty that the early Fathers who taught these doctrines were wrong, and the Reformed Baptist church is absolutely correct in its understanding of Scripture?"

I'm convinced that the symbolic credo Baptist position is the one that the scripture teaches. I'm always happy to admit to the possibility of error in a purely mechanical way, but I don't have any doubts about my position.

12. In conclusion, it would be incredibly difficult to convince me that equal weight should be given to what Rome calls sacred tradition as well as scripture. Any other extra biblical tradition

(1) Does not preserve verbatim Apostolic words (2) Cannot be identified which Apostle taught

(3) Cannot be traced as being taught to a specific church

(4) Many contradict scripture

(5) Are Difficult if not impossible to prove that churches believed it

(6) Is not specifically defined

(7) Was not meticulous preserved

(8) Is not recognized by churches councils

(9) Comes from uninspired, fallible, and sometimes errant authors

(10) Does not follow the pattern of the Old Testament or expectations of writing down God's revelation.

(11) Is by definition a less sure word of prophecy at best

Scripture can meet all of the above; nothing else can.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOE:

ZACH: Thanks again Joe. I will try to keep this less than 19 pages, but hopefully give a thorough response.

I think you're asserting that by definition, only the decisions of man can be infallible, yes?

JOE: It is a minor point for me regarding a proper definition. Going off the understanding you have presented, I am fine saying Scripture is infallible, as I have already asserted it is inspired and inerrant. To clarify, the Popes and Ecumenical Councils can exercise infallibility according to Catholic teaching, but they are not inspired.

ZACH:2. You said "There is circular reason occurring here, or assuming things to be true without having first established why it's true"

JOE: I am familiar with the charge of Sola Ecclesia. However, I have not used dogmatic Papal or Conciliar pronouncements in my attempt to refute Sola Scriptura or show the case for Sacred Tradition. I have utilized Scripture and the testimony of the early Church. Our view is a tripod of authority that all works together, a Trinitarian type view of authority. Three yet one. We uphold Sola Verbum Dei (Word of God alone) since we are commanded to hold fast to all that was revealed by Our Lord and the Apostles, whether in writing or through oral preaching. If there is ever a dispute on what constitutes Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition, the Church can step in, to ensure that whatever is bound on earth has been bound in Heaven. You made a point previously that an infallible source would be needed to determine what constitutes Sacred Tradition, yet you believe a fallible source was utilized to determine what constitutes Sacred Scripture. This is illogical.

ZACH: 2.2. That said, I've usually started with something more like an introductory position; I've stated my position in (hopefully) clear terms and without defense up front, so that when I defend it later, I can refer to be clear articulation of my position. I'm happy to do that again here:

• What God says is the ground of truth; our Epistemological foundation and the norming Norm.

• Scripture is the only infallible and inerrant preservation of the Apostolic transmission of Christ's teaching, which is by definition the words of God.

• Thus, Sola Scriptura is the only way to follow scripture telling us to give heed to apostolic teaching

Now, these statements may sound like assuming something to be true without establishing it. But this is simply an articulation of my position, not a defense yet.

JOE: I have demonstrated from the Fathers that this was not their view. I also cited unbiased reputable Protestant historians (Schaff and Kelly) to show that they admit it was not the view of the Fathers. I only reiterate this here to make it very clear that you should not try to claim that the Fathers held to this view of Sola Scriptura. It is just better to be transparent on that. The Fathers clearly did not hold to Sola Scriptura. So your view and deduction may be yours, but we do not have proof that it existed in the post Apostolic era.

ZACH: 3. Let me give a longer defense of why Scripture alone is the correct default position.

All 5 of the above are true of Scripture.

JOE: They were in a position after a succession of councils were held at the end of the 4th century, which interestingly is a time period that you have previously stated where things started to go off the tracks a bit. Prior to then, you had some writings which had agreement, and then you had a host of others where was debate and uncertainty. As I have stated before, you can not have a mechanism that hopes Jude is inspired revelation but is not certain, or that wonders if the Didache is inspired revelation but we can not be sure. This is what Protestantism offers to the world. “A fallible collection of infallible books,” as R.C. Sproul so famously stated. The Fathers also had: a succession of bishops that (1) preserved clear Apostolic teachings (2) from the Apostles (3) which did not contradict their understanding of Scripture (4) and were already well known and practiced in the churches. This is reflective of how the early Fathers believed, and again, even Protestant historians admit this. I still do not understand how you claim we can rely on fallible men to make binding determinations on the canon, but in order to know teachings that were preached, we need an infallible source. And if you say the canon is not binding on the consciences of believers, then that means it is theoretically still up for debate today.

ZACH: If we applied the same standard to any specific "oral tradition", all would fail the first 3 automatically; there are no specific words of the Apostles recorded outside of Scripture and none of the "oral traditions" are traceable to a specific Apostolic author or to a specific church where it was taught. Even now (as I understand), there does not exist a definitive body of "oral" Apostolic teachings as found in the early fathers. Whatever so called "oral traditions" are said to exist outside scripture exist somewhere in various smatterings across the father's writings. At the risk of sounding disrespectful, this is almost akin to saying "eh, they are out there somewhere". But Scripture has been (6) specifically defined, (7) meticulous preserved, (8) and recognized by churches councils across time. None of this can be said for teaching that is said to be Apostolic that is also extra scriptural. This means to even consider whether non-scriptural sources are Apostolic, we have to adopt a less reliable standard than we have for Scripture.

JOE: I stated at the onset that the issue is not specific words, but rather teachings. I have provided many statements from Fathers citing doctrines that they say were taught and handed down from the Apostles, some of which you disagree with (Infant Baptism, for example), and others you agree with (Sunday replacing Saturday for worship). And again, even according to Protestant scholars, the Fathers believed the way to know these teachings were true was by being connected to the Church which had a succession of bishops that could be traced back to the Apostles. As we saw previously, this was precisely St. Irenaeus’ understanding, when he said heretics denied Scripture and Tradition yet said they were wrong because they had no succession going back to the Apostles. St. Augustine mentioned that heretics can validly administer Baptism. Tertullian notes that we are to commemorate the anniversaries of the death of martyrs and make offerings for them. Origen said infant baptism was handed down from the oral preaching of the Apostles. St. Basil said that the Apostles taught the Sign of the Cross prayer. St. Irenaeus and St. Justin both note Mary as the New Eve. St. Ignatius, the Didache, and St. Barnabas all say that Sunday has replaced the Sabbath as the Lord’s Day for the New Covenant. St. Polycarp spoke of methods of fasting that he learned from St. John the Apostle. Who has the authority to determine if these are inspired or man made? The same Church that had the authority to determine which writings were inspired versus man made.

ZACH: 3.2. I don't think it can be disputed that the supposed non-scriptural Apostolic teaching that does exist comes from uninspired, fallible (sometimes errant) writings of fallible men. No one claims early church writings are inspired, and it's not even in question that most of the fathers were fallible men; Romanists only claim the Pope to be capable of infallibility, so none of the early writers were infallible, much less their specific writings. And I doubt that Rome wants to declare the early church fathers writings to be entirely inerrant. So, in the smattering of uninspired, fallible, likely partially errant writings from the fathers, on what basis do we decide what actually is Apostolic tradition? It must be limited only to those things the father's claim are Apostolic tradition, and even then, it cannot be the father's referencing the scripture; if a father believes their interpretation of scripture is apostolic, we already have the scripture as our standard and the scripture can be examined as well as their interpretation. And if any particular father cites even 1 "tradition" where he is in error, we have reason to mistrust that particular father. So for these supposed claims to Apostolic that are specifically claimed to be extra biblical tradition where the father has never made an erroneous claim of this type, how can we judge whether the claim is true? It cannot be on the basis of scripture, because it claimed that this tradition is as authoritative as scripture. Essentially, all we have is that particular uninspired fallible father's claim; we must believe it simply because he said so. Whereas the apostles did possess infallibility in writing scripture, and the scripture is inspired, infallible and inerrant. Again, we have to adopt a less reliable standard than we have for Scripture.

JOE: You are showing again why Our Lord instituted a teaching Church which could bind and loose with the authority of Heaven. Even if the men are uninspired and fallible, show us the historical pedigree where corrupted teachings came in. I produced statements from the first 3 centuries demonstrating Baptismal Regeneration, going back to the 1st century. The Apostles possessed “infallibility” not just in writing scripture (or just in preaching divine revelation), but also too in making doctrinal decisions that would bind the Church, as we saw in Acts 15. That teaching has never been changed in 2000 years, and no one today can change it, even if they interpret Scripture differently. No one can change the canon of the New Testament, even if they think it should be changed.

ZACH: 3.4. We have very good reason to expect the specific words of the Apostles to be written down.

• there is no inspired revelation of the Old Testament outside of what is recorded in Scripture. Yes, much of what was revealed first came orally, but all of it was then written down, and often by the specific command of God. All of the preserved revelation of God from the Old Testament is written down; there is now no oral tradition for the OT. This means that, by default, the standard for the OT is Sola Scriptura.

• Demonstrating the above, Our Lord condemns the Pharisee's view of the oral Mosaic tradition around Korban and points instead to written scripture in Matthew 15 and says "thus you nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition"

• Frankly, this is why the idea that there were oral traditions that were never written down seems unbelievable. The idea that God's people who were people of the book, to whom the entire Old Testament was received as written scripture, who were commanded to write down what God has spoken, who meticulously preserved the written word of the New Testament, would simply neglect to write down the actual words of the apostles for teachings that are contained nowhere else, I kind of find unlikely at best. It's like trying to argue the priest just didn't bless the Eucharist at Mass that week; that doesn't happen, because that's the whole point of the Mass.

JOE: For matters of doctrine and questions pertaining to faith and morals, the Israelites had the Law (written) and they had the prophets (oral) and they had an authority to turn to that could consult God on decisions that needed to be made (Numbers 15:32-36, Numbers 27:18-22, Deuteronomy 5:5, 2 Samuel 23:2, 1 Kings 17:24). Jude cites two stories, one on Moses and one on Enoch, which are not found in the Old Testament and yet are authoritatively true (Jude 1:9-16). The New Testament mentions that angels delivered the law in the Old Testament, which is an extra biblical source that is considered authoritative (Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19, Hebrews 2:2-3).

You say “all of it” was written down in regards to the oral preaching, but you have no way to prove that statement. It is an assumption you make. Even if one wants to go the route of “material sufficiency,” which I personally do not, no one has a way to know if St. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians for example were word for word what he preached while visiting there. If his preaching contained any slight variation to anything he wrote, it proves the case for Sacred Tradition.

1 Corinthians 4:6 has nothing to do with discussing authority. St. Paul says they should not go beyond what is written, because he just spent 3 chapters telling them they should not be puffed up with pride and stirring up divisions. St. Paul says he and St. Barnabas themselves are merely humble servants, even though they possess authority. And so they should not beyond what he has just instructed them. There is no Sola Scriptura being taught here, especially since, again, at this same time in history, he is still preaching divine revelation to them orally.

The citations to “traditions of men” is precisely why we reject Sola Scriptura, because it has no pedigree through the succession of Bishops prior to the 16th century. I am aware that some will say it began in seed

form towards the end of the 15th century, but the point remains. You previously tried to cite St. Irenaeus and St. Augustine as vindicating Sola Scriptura in the patristic era, but I showed that was a futile attempt. The immediate context of their quotes, coupled with the wider context of their other writings, demonstrates that they in no way held to Sola Scriptura as Protestants do today. Not only that, but I also cited reputable Protestant historians backing that very point up, admitting that St. Irenaeus and St. Augustine held to Sacred Tradition and also the role of Apostolic Succession as being pivotal alongside Sacred Scripture. So there is no historical pedigree for Sola Scriptura, even though you have stated one can not trust a Father such as St. Justin Martyr since he was 100 years after the Apostles. Since we do not see Sola Scriptura anywhere in the early Church, in fact nowhere for centuries, then it is a tradition of men, and thus it nullifies the Word of God.

ZACH: 3.5. I'll give an updated exegesis 2 Peter 1:29 here. I've already given my views of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Timothy 3:16 elsewhere, so I'll just respond to those comments later. We know that Peter wrote 2 Peter before his impending death; and what does Peter describe as his object in his last letter? 21-2 Peter 1:14

"since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. [15] And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things. [16] For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. [17] For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” [18] we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. [19] And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, [20] knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. [21] For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

JOE: St. Peter says no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation, because it comes from God Himself. We agree. No issue there. The passage has nothing to do with Sacred Scripture being the sole authority for faith and morals. St. Paul also says his preaching is rightly received as the true Word of God. Both concepts are in harmony with each other. The Church determined which books constituted divine revelation, and she does this as well with the testimony of the Fathers in regards to apostolic teachings handed down. Again, you can not have St. Peter teaching that Scripture alone is the sole authority when it is not being practiced at that time in history, since both are modes of divine revelation. And you can not know if Jude is inspired written revelation with certainty, because you believe fallible men decided it was. Moreover, this passage from St. Peter is principally speaking of the nature of prophetic inspiration, but it can also be applied analogously to private interpretation as a mechanism for determining truth from error. One ought not

utilize personal subjective opinions when interpreting Sacred Scripture. It was not God’s intention to give us the Bible so that we could all be debating one another on bible passages. He gave us the Bible so that we could become holy.

ZACH: 3.6. So why is Sola scriptura the default position?

Because it is the clear testimony of the Apostles.

Any other extra biblical tradition

(1) Does not preserve verbatim Apostolic words (2) Cannot be identified which Apostle taught

(3) Cannot be traced as being taught to a specific church

(4) Many contradict scripture (I realize I'm claiming this without proving it, but isn't a discussion about any particular tradition)

(5) Difficult if not impossible to prove that churches believed it; many show up hundreds of years later

(6) Is not specifically defined

(7) Was not meticulous preserved

(8) Is not recognized by churches councils (as a single body; many "traditions" have never been dogmatically confirmed)

(9) Comes from uninspired, fallible, and sometimes errant authors

(10) Does not follow the pattern of the Old Testament (all of the Old Testament Revelation is scripture) or expectations of writing down God's revelation.

(11) Is by definition a less sure word of prophecy at best.

JOE: You say many teachings show up hundreds of years later, yet even when they show up early, you still deny them if they do not square away with your own private interpretation of Scripture, which you assume to be the sole rule of faith, and which needed fallible men to determine its contents. You say the teachings were not meticulously preserved, yet when we show that they were, and that the Fathers believed this ought to be connected to the succession of Bishops to know for sure, you deny it because it does not fit with your own private interpretation of Scripture. So basically we are going in circles at this point. We put more trust in the Fathers saying certain teachings were handed down by the Apostles, and we put more trust in the Church that told us which books belonged in the Bible.

ZACH: 4. Some quick responses to openings comments.

4.1. You said "the natural reading of [2 Thessalonians 2:15] would lead one to ask, 'Where can I find their letters? Where can I find what they taught by word?'".

And yes, I agree. We agree about the letters (of the NT), we disagree about what's taught by word; Protestants hold that all the oral teaching needed is now contained in Scripture.

JOE: But you do not have certainty even on the canon since fallible men put it together. As well, you have not shown any evidence that the Apostles ever said their oral teachings will all be confined to writing, and then once public revelation ceases, that will be the sole rule for Christians to go by. There is simply not one passage of the Bible that teaches this, or prophecies about it, or even a deduction of passages that shows it. And certainly no one in the early Church argued for it. We see just the opposite.

ZACH: 4.2. You quoted Matthew 28:20 and said "This shows that the oral teachings of the Apostles which are divine revelation will be protected in a special way so that future generations can know what is contained within it."

Agreed; this is quite literally the function of Scripture. It is truly incredible to read the history of the preservation of scripture, but this cannot be said about so-called oral tradition.

JOE: Our Lord commands the Apostles to go out and teach, which they did. Some of them chose to write certain letters and epistles as well. But the point remains that Our Lord promised to be with His Church until the end of the age as He charged them to out and teach. You argued that the oral preaching could not be preserved, and yet this passage teaches just the opposite. As well, this passage gives us assurance that Scripture is not just a “fallible collection of infallible books.” Rather, it is dogmatically the Word of God, without any room for error whatsoever.

ZACH: 4.3. You said "Sola Scriptura is not the only way to give heed to apostolic teaching, otherwise there would have been no need for the Council of Jerusalem"

JOE: The Bible gives the clear precedent for what the leaders of the Church ought to do when a doctrinal dispute arises. The Apostles also had successors there, the elders. St. Matthias would have been there, the successor in the office to Judas. Our Lord said if one will not listen to the Church, let him be as a heathen and tax collector (Matthew 18:17-18). He did not say that expires once the last Apostle dies. It is a precedent that He clearly teaches. And Protestants ignore it in lieu of Sola Scriptura. The Church laid down the rule at Acts 15, and when they did, it was not up for debate.

ZACH: 4.4. You said "If the Fathers teach with moral unanimity, then it is enough. God would not have allowed for a heresy to be disseminated in the early Church with consistency"

JOE: Says who? Our Lord promised and guaranteed to be with His Church to the end, to send the Holy Spirit to lead her, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against her. Of course false teachers will arise. Just look at Martin Luther and John Calvin. And how does the Church deal with them? By debating Bible verses ad nauseum? No, but following the template that Scripture and Tradition both clearly laid out: calling a Council to make a determination. This also ensures that the true teachings of the full Word of God remain incorrupt and pure. Even St. Athanasius cited the authority of the Council of Nicaea, and that held more weight than all the individual bishops who fell into Arianism. This again shows us historical precedent for the authority of Councils. And how God protects the Church in such circumstances. All the other examples you cite do not prove anything. Popes are not impeccable, but when they utilize Infallibility, including in Ecumenical Councils for dogmas, those teachings stand till the end of time. The Eastern Orthodox sect denied papal supremacy and thus fell into heresy and schism. Even so, we still have Eastern Sees that held to the truth. And as I stated previously, Ecumenical Councils can override local or regional synods.

ZACH: What of the heresy of modernism, as Rome appears to descend into heresy at every level under Pope francis? Has this been going on since Vatican 1? It would appear that the history of the church is much more of error and repentance, and the Holy Savior who is always correcting his church, much like our own individual stories of sanctification. The idea that "God would not have allowed for a heresy to be disseminated in the early Church with consistency" seems to be neither consistent with scripture nor with the history of the church.

JOE: Modernism is prevalent today, as even Scripture predicted that the true Church would encounter an apostasy prior to the Antichrist. She has had apostasies occur in the past, such as the Protestant revolution of the 16th century. As far as authoritative binding dogmas, they are still stand and none of them have been overturned, nor will they ever be.

ZACH: 5. With regard to Justin Martyr;

5.1. Like I said before, I'm certainly no scholar, and I'm not very well read on the nuances of Justin Martyr's theology. Happy to admit I'm a very lay person with regard to this topic.

JOE: Here is Protestant scholar Eric Osborn on St. Justin: “We are fortunate in the First Apology to have an entire chapter specifically devoted to baptism. It is in this context of baptism that he claimed to have received apostolic teaching, as quoted in the introduction above. Baptism as remission and escape from sin, regeneration, and new birth are clear from the text… For what purpose are believers baptized in Justin's theology? Baptize in order that the person "may obtain in the water the remission of sins… Significantly, there is no discussion of remission of sins anywhere else in the Apology, except in this context of baptism.” Again, in Schaff’s own translation, the phrase regeneration is used in the context of water baptism and the remission of sins.

ZACH: 5.3. You've said "This leaves us with the question on who ought to be trusted more: pastors centuries removed from the Apostolic era, or martyrs who were teaching what was handed to them a generation after the Apostles" but who gets the decide authoritatively what Justin was teaching? Has a church council authoritatively declared a dogmatic interpretation of Justin's views? Is there a unanimous consent among the fathers than Justin meant something specific? I think the answer to those questions is no. So it sounds like you are capable of privately reading and deciding what Justin Martyr meant. If we can read and understand Justin Martyr's more obscure writing, there's no reason to think we cannot read and understand the more plain scripture.

JOE: Who gets to decide? Well certainly not every lay person with a Bible. The Corinthians did not sit around debating Bible verses. They were taught by St. Paul, and he taught with authority. They also learned from him when he would preach and teach in person. And if there was any dispute, we see that Councils were called to make binding decisions. This is just simply what we see right from Sacred Scripture. It is what we see from the early Church. We do not see Sola Scriptura.

ZACH: 5.4. And Justin isn't referring to some unwritten oral Apostolic tradition, he referred to 2 passages of Scripture; John 3:5 and Isaiah 1:16-20. And by God's grace, and the hard work of Protestant Reformers, we can actually read those scriptures in our own language and understand them.

JOE: Just to reiterate the point, St. Justin’s citation of John 3:5 clearly demonstrates one thing: that the early Church understood “born again” as regeneration through water baptism. Thus, that is the interpretation that was handed down by the Apostles. Any other interpretation comes from traditions of men who nullify the Word of God. No one in the early Church held the Reformed Baptist position. But somehow they were all wrong. Yet somehow they got it right on the canon of Scripture.

ZACH: 5.5. At the end of the day, especially given what I've already discussed in section 3, I'm just not enough of a scholar to know, and I'm just not going to be deeply affected by whether Justin taught baptismal regeneration or not. It's an interesting artifact of history, but because I subscribe to the formal sufficiency and intelligibility of scripture, I believe the scripture corrects Justin, and not the other way around. Scripture can be rightly understood, and I'm far from the only Protestant across history who subscribes to the interpretation I provided in section 5.4, or who denies baptismal regeneration. That doesn't make all interpretations valid, or even most; you said "The reality is, either interpretation could be plausible, but only one can be true." And I fully believe that. I just don't believe Justin, or any other fallible man has final authority; like a math equation in a math textbook, the right answer is right because it is, not merely because a teacher said so.

JOE: At least you are willing to admit that either interpretation could be plausible, and now you freely admit that you prefer your private interpretation to that of a saint and martyr who lived in Ephesus and Rome and learned his faith from men who knew the Apostles.

ZACH: 5.6. Referring back to sections 5.1 and 5.5, you might be right about these corrections about Justin's various views, but you might be wrong. I'm not nearly enough of a scholar to know, I would have to read more scholars on the subject, and I have a slight mistrust for Catholic scholarship. I provided few things I read briefly from Protestant researchers, but I'm really not going to be affected that much. Justin was uninspired, Justin was fallible, and I think we have reason to believe Justin was errant in some areas. But Scripture is infallible, inspired, and inerrant, and we must read Justin through the lens of scripture and not the other way around.

JOE: But this is also why I cited several Protestant historians because they are not biased to the Catholic position. And they admit that these Fathers did not advocate for Sola Scriptura.

ZACH: 5.7. You've said "This underscores the real issue here" and I do actually agree there. You seem to cast great deal of aspersions on what you called "private interpretation" (which of course borrows from the language of 2 Peter 1, which is about the inspiration of scripture, not its interpretation), but it sounds like what you're actually doing is denying formal sufficiency, and insisting we need an authoritative interpretation. But this seems to stand against the very way God made the world; true things are true because they are, not because someone declared them to be. Physics, scientists, and astronomers are not correct because of the consensus on the scientific community; in fact the consensus of the scientific community has often led to ruin. Scientific theories are true when they are true because they are. Nuclear physics aren't true because everyone agreed, they are true because when you put it into use, the atomic bomb goes boom. The scripture is true because God is true and He has spoken. When Romans 3:4 says "Let God be true and everyman a liar", we should believe that. Peter says "we should obeyed God rather than men" and we should believe that. The fathers are either right or wrong and God's truth in scripture corrects them, not the other way round. Any truth from any era at any time can and should be held up to the standard of scripture.

JOE: I do not advocate for formal sufficiency or material sufficiency of Scripture, since Scripture itself never uses the word “sufficient” for itself. It is useful and profitable.

ZACH: 5.8. You've mentioned deferring to the judgement of the early church because they were " teaching what was handed to them a generation after the Apostles" as well as being " Saints and martyrs who helped defend the dogmas of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ and the Hypostatic Union against heretics."

• But deferring to the early church because they were only a generation away makes the assumption that they actually had direct extra biblical teaching oral teaching from the apostles; you assume they would have known better because they were taught more directly. But that's assuming the whole subject of the debate! Yes, if we assume they correctly preserved extra biblical direct Apostolic teaching, we should listen to them. But we can't just assume that. Just look at the churches at Galatia and Cornith; planted by Apostles, listened to direct Apostolic teaching, and went way off track. How many other early fathers were later condemned his heretics? What about Clement of Alexandria or his pupil Origen? Brilliant men, living something like a hundred years from the apostles, later condemned as Heretics by popes. If the Berean Church in Acts 17:11 can be commended because they "examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true", I think we should probably also examine early church fathers for the same reason.

• Martyrdom and defense of the faith on other subjects is also not enough reason to simply assume claims to extra biblical Apostolic teaching are true. The Protestant church has had plenty of martyrs, as well as members of non-Christian groups who have died for their false faith. And we know it's possible for spiritual Giants to stand strong in one area, and it completely fail in another; look at the example of King David. Mighty Man of God, a man after God's own heart, falls into adultery and murder. Martyrs and mighty men can err; if the Berean Church can subject even the apostles to analysis of scripture, it behooves us to do the same for Martyrs and mighty Men.

• Now I'm happy to grant that the credentials of those in the early church give us reason to study what they have written. They truly were Martyrs and Giants of the early faith, and it benefits us to understand what they said! But all of them are uninspired, fallible, and likely sometimes errant. Read them, yes. Necessarily accept everything they said? Certainly not.

JOE: It seems more apparent to me that you do not accept anything they said, because even on the topic of infant baptism, you thought it was an early corruption, but can not provide any historical data for that. You said Baptismal Regeneration was not a majority view until the late 4th century, but can not show any evidence of a different majority view prior to then. I know Protestants have had martyrs, but they did not receive instruction from men who knew the Apostles. The Protestants did not belong to the succession of Bishops, which was the normative belief among the Fathers as I showed previously.

ZACH: 5.9. You said "Using your own logic, if there is teaching that shows up 16 centuries after Our Lord and the Apostles, we have to judge that teaching by Scripture and the consensus of the Fathers"

JOE: I have already shown this to not be correct.

ZACH: 5.10. Regarding baptismal regeneration as the majority view, again as I've confessed, I'm by no means scholar in this area. Happy to defer to the work of other scholars, as I've already mentioned.

JOE: But none of them certainly hold to Reformed Baptist ideas. Not one of them.

ZACH: 6. Regarding Irenaeus

JOE: Yes, there are anti Catholic apologists who will assert that. But that is why I cited an unbiased source, a Protestant source who admits St. Irenaeus is obviously being taken out of context.

ZACH: 6.2. Regarding Against Heresies 3.5.1, no I don't think I accept your interpretation. It sounds like Irenaeus may be referring to the scripture itself as the tradition from the apostles. And I will certainly follow Irenaeus's advice to "revert to the scriptural proof furnished by the apostles" because Reformed Baptist do have the tradition from the apostles; Scripture.

JOE: I have already cited Protestant scholars admitting what St. Irenaeus actually believed.

ZACH: 6.3 Regarding Against Heresies III.1, you said "So St. Irenaeus teaches that divine revelation began with oral preaching, and then secondly came also through written letters, and that this divine revelation is the ground and pillar of our faith. " And I have no disagreement there. But you went on to say "This is exactly the Catholic position. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture is the ground and pillar" but that's not what Irenaeus says. Not only does he indicate that the Gospel preached in public was itself handed down in Scripture, but the direct antecedent of "ground and pillar of our faith" is Scripture. So either the Gospel or the Scripture is the "ground and pillar of our faith". If the Gospel, it was written down. It's odd to try to add "sacred tradition" to that. Again, I'm no Irenaus scholar, but I don't think I agree with your interpretation.

JOE: Nope, I showed the actual citation of St. Irenaeus from a Protestant source, clearly showing what his context was. If you remove commas from a sentence it can definitely affect the meaning. And again, I provided citations from unbiased reputable Protestant scholars who admitted what St. Irenaeus actually believed. And I provided even more context from St. Irenaeus himself. I think you should just admit that St. Irenaeus did not hold to your Reformed Baptist view. Sorry but that is just the truth.

ZACH: 6.4.Regarding Against Heresies III.2, I don't think you can use this extended context against Protestants. I'm not convinced Irenaeus is speaking about a separate tradition that is not in scripture, but even so, Protestants are not "saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles"; we fully submit to every preserved word of the Apostles, and the tradition of Scripture and it's Gospel that did indeed did originate from the apostles and has been preserved by the presbyters. And these people he is criticizing sound like gnostics who reject the apostles and the teachings of Our Lord. Not really applicable to us, we do not.

JOE: You can take up your argument with Philip Schaff and J.N.D. Kelly, two reputable conservative Protestant scholars and patristic historians who admit what St. Irenaeus believed. It is funny to me that St. Irenaeus says

these heretics reject both Scripture and Tradition, and then he defaults to the argument of the succession of Bishops, and you still conclude he is teaching Sola Scriptura.

ZACH: 6.5. Regarding the additional quotes from Irenaeus, and the Protestant scholars you cited, I don't know that I would have so much disagreed with him in the time he was writing it, though like anything, his writings are subject to scripture. But since (and likely even some even during) that time, the accretions that Rome and the East have justified as "tradition" make it impossible to argue as Irenaeus did. And frankly, I would be happy to assert that an early over emphasis on tradition helped lead to worse accretions.

JOE: No comment needed. I have stated my case. The chips can fall where they do.

ZACH: 6.6.

• Happy to admit that Augustine also placed undue emphasis on "tradition". You'll note that those historians are still Protestant; recognizing what Augustine actually said, but rejecting his view. Many have called the entire Catholic / Protestant debate Augustine versus Augustine, as both sides seem to find things in his writings they glom onto. But given his standard with regard to his own writing, I think it only makes sense to apply that same standard to the writings of any father or any so-called "tradition". So I don't mind praising Augustine when he was very right, and severely criticizing Augustine for when he was very wrong as this is the very thing Augustine asks us to do.

• I also don't mind admitting the tradition and the authority of the church ought to be a safeguard to keep us from heresy; just like a sense of normalcy keeps us from drifting into things that are abnormal. But if the entire tradition drifts away from scripture's teachings, at some point we have to shake off unbibilcal accretions and reform ourselves back to scripture.

JOE: So when does Tradition or Church authority ever get utilized as a safeguard? All I see is it being denied as holding any influence whatsoever, and an attempt to try to prove that the Fathers believed Sola Scriptura. And yes, of course the Protestant historians reject St. Augustine’s views. That is because St. Augustine was a Catholic Bishop. He did not believe in Sola Scriptura. There is no need for a “reformed Catholic” that holds to Sola Scriptura. All that is needed is just convert to Catholicism and leave behind the traditions of men.

ZACH: 7. Regarding the Canon of scripture and councils

JOE: I have no interest in debating the Deuterocanonicals. The focal point at hand is that Protestants agree with Catholics on the New Testament canon. You say their “reasoning appears to be sound.” Sorry but that is

just not good enough. You need absolute certainty that those Councils and Bishops got it right. And of course, they did. Every Protestant today owes the Catholic Church of the 4th century a big Thank You.

ZACH: 7.2.

• The fact that ecumenical councils can override other councils means that some councils can get it wrong. Which certainly means that has not been unanimity on these issues across time. Not to mention that the Fifth Lateran Council (ecumenical with papal oversight) overrode elements of the council of Basel (ecumenical with papal oversight), the council of Constance (ecumenical with papal oversight), as well as the controversial ecumenical council of Pisa. And they gave their justification by the papal ecumenical council of Chalcedon overriding elements of the papal ecumenical council of Ephesus. So apparently even ecumenical councils with papal oversight can get it wrong.

JOE: Yes, Ecumenical Councils with papal ratification can override local and regional synods and councils. Ecumenical Councils can choose to invoke infallibility, whereas local and regional synods can not. The council of Basel was called by a Pope but then dissolved without any papal approval. It was corrected by the ecumenical Council of Florence. The council of Pisa was a regional council, not ecumenical. And Councils can freely make changes regarding disciplinary practices, but they can not change doctrines or dogmas.

ZACH: • And no, Rome, Hippo, and Carthage make no explicit mention of the book of Baruch or the Epistle to Jeremiah, as the synod of Laodicea does, as well as Florence and Trent. You may argue this was included in Jeremiah, and I'd be curious to hear what the evidences for that, but I don't think there's a consensus view whether those councils included those two. And if we're going to say and that Florence and Trent merely reasserted what previous councils declared, we have to hold them to the same standard. Simply not mentioning important elements of the deuterocannon is not a negligible oversight; we can't just say "oh well, they meant to include it". Athanasius, Laodicea, and others make specific mention of it, so it's an oversight is notable

JOE: Baruch wasn’t left out. Besides being a prophet himself, Baruch served as the prophet Jeremiah’s scribe. The books of Baruch and Lamentations—which also known as “The Lamentations of Jeremiah”—were sometimes referred to collectively as “Jeremiah” in canonical lists of the early Church. We see the close relationship between these biblical books in canon 60 of the Council of Laodicea, which scholars estimate took place between A.D. 343 and 380. Jeremiah is listed with Baruch and Lamentations, though all three are named.

ZACH: 7.3. You said "It is a matter of whether or not the Church is infallibly certain in its determination, or is there potential room for error"

JOE: The Council of Trent dogmatically had the Deuterocanonicals. And according to your standard, one can not be certain then in regards to the present canon at all. Jude may not be Scripture. Perhaps the Didache should be included. This is all Protestantism can give us.

ZACH: 8. Regarding 2 Thessalonians 2:15

JOE: As I said, it is superfluous for St. Paul to command his hearers to hold fast to either Scripture or his oral preaching, if he was advocating Sola Scriptura.

ZACH: 8.2. You said "But the good news is it was not lost to history." But outside of Scripture, the actual words of the Apostle's "oral tradition" are lost, as is any information about which apostle taught these things to whom. So to use your example, what we have instead are a few scattered bullet point summaries that are said to have come some coffee shop conversation somewhere with someone Apostolic, but we don't know where or with whom. As I described in section 3, that's a far cry from the criteria applied to scripture.

JOE: Your only criteria for saying the apostolic teachings were lost is your own private and subjective interpretation of Scripture. That is it. The Fathers certainly did not believe or teach as you do on that topic. And again, Protestant historians admit this of them.

ZACH: 9. Regarding 2 Timothy 3:16

JOE: I gave an entire exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:16, and I believe my points still stand. The burden of proof is on the one who says tradition can be useful but every Father who says a teaching was taught by the Apostles is just mistaken since the Reformed Baptist church has a different interpretation on doctrine. I think it is time to admit that it is not correct to label yourself as a “Reformed Catholic.” You hold nothing in common with Catholic Bishops and Saints of early history.

ZACH: 9.2. I am fine counting Paul's oral teaching as God breathed as well. Let my Catholic brethren produce for us the exact God-breathed words of Paul or any apostle outside of Holy Scripture. You and I both know this cannot be done, so the only God-breathed words that remain are scripture.

JOE: I have already cited numerous examples of God-breathed teaching that was passed on. As well, it is good you finally admitted that his oral teaching was also God-breathed. This proves the entire point. In the

first century, we have two modes of divine revelation. God-breathed revelation. By default, we can not have Sola Scriptura. The 1st century believers did not practice Sola Scriptura which would have been impossible to do. And once we enter the second century, we see the same theme over and over: Scripture, Tradition, Apostolic Succession, Church Authority.

ZACH: 9.3. I don't think I or anyone else argues that 2 Timothy 3:16 directly translates to sola scriptura, as some apostles were still living and giving teaching and the Canon of scripture was not closed. But here, at the end of Paul's life and ministry, Paul's emphasis is on scripture. And if we have not preserved Paul's or any other apostles actual oral teaching, only scripture remains as God breathed.

JOE: Then do not use 2 Timothy 3:16 in trying to defend Sola Scriptura. I have already provided a detailed exegesis on this passage. To just say “his emphasis is on Scripture” just does not suffice given the context.

ZACH: 9.4. Regarding this passage being to Timothy as a Man of God, you said "any point of Christian doctrine for that matter, one must have recourse to the Church that has the succession of Bishops."

JOE: Without getting into a whole conversation on Apostolic succession, these points suffice for now. In Acts 1:20, the office of successor to an Apostle is called Bishopric. And there should be no dispute (I hope) that the early Church certainly believed in a succession of Bishops, and provided many examples of Bishops tracing back to the 1st century. I included some of those citations previously. Even St. Clement was the third Bishop of Rome after St. Peter, and he is mentioned by St. Paul in Philippians 4. I just want to note that the main point here is that St. Timothy is indeed a Bishop as all sides agree. And St. Paul is writing this letter to him, saying Scripture is useful to equip him and train him in order to live a holy life.

ZACK: 9.5. You asked "Scripture alone equips the man of God and makes him complete, and one Protestant claims it teaches infant baptism but another says it does not, which one is the man of God?"

JOE: False doctrine comes from Satan and heresy corrupts souls through the poison of error. Either Our Lord and the Apostles taught infant baptism or they did not. It is not enough to say it is an “important issue” but not heretical. So the Reformed Baptist church winks at a teaching they consider to be a corruption, but will not call it a heretical teaching. Again, this is not the template we see from Sacred Scripture or Church history.

ZACH: 9.6. I don't have any problem looking to Acts 15, or the debate between Paul and Barnabas as examples. The question arises whether the decisions of fallible men are binding on the conscience of every Christian. I simply assert that church councils can be wrong, and when they are wrong, their erroneous decisions are not binding on the consciences of faithful Christians. Christians have a responsibility to be faithful to God's Revelation of Himself in Scripture first and foremost.

JOE: Acts 15 shows us that the Holy Spirit has an involvement in Councils that involve the recognized leadership of the Church. And the early Church clearly believed in the authority of Ecumenical Councils, including St. Athanasius and St. Augustine. Again, I think at minimum, you should admit that the early Church did not believe in Sola Scriptura. They held Apostolic Tradition and the authority of Councils in equal authority, as I have now shown several times. You can say the Council of Jerusalem was a one-off, but again, you have no way to prove this from Scripture. All Scripture does in this regard is give us the template for what to do when a doctrinal dispute arises.

ZACH: 9.7. You've said "St. Paul"s sole intention appears to be that inspired Scripture is profitable and useful to equip the man of God for good works [...] St. Paul could have used the term 'sufficient' when discussing Scripture, but instead he used 'profitable' or 'useful,' implying one of many things to assist the Christian in doing good works"

JOE: St. Paul says Scripture is useful to this end, to make the man of God perfect and fully equipped for every good work. Again, no argument on that face value reading. It is completely true. I did not say it is “kind of useful.” In fact, I said it is exceedingly useful to this end, as are many other things in the Christian life. Again, no discussion from St. Paul here on authority, epistemology, ecclesiology, etc. Not at all. And you ask why St. Paul does not mention oral tradition here, however you have already admitted that it too was God-breathed revelation. As well, just a few verses above in 2 Timothy 3:10-11, St. Paul says, “You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, sufferings.” And you have already admitted that, at this stage, his teaching was not just being written down but also orally preached. And in verse 12 he indicates these also equip us to “live a godly life.” So those also are useful, and so is Scripture.

ZACH: 9.8. You've said "The mechanism presented by the Protestant rubric of private interpretation shows that 'men of God' in each distinct denomination have their own unique understanding of how to interpret God-breathed Scripture. Thus, they can never have full certainty if their interpretation is correct. "

JOE: You are correct, God and His Word does not err. And His Word, as you have admitted, came through oral preaching and Scripture. And we know what constitutes Scripture from councils and bishops. And by that same means, we know what constitutes the oral apostolic teachings as well. And also, Scripture was not given so that we could all become self Magisteriums. It was given so that we could become holy and be conformed to Christ. This is why we must know the truth of what it says, and subjective opinion will not be acceptable. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) according to St. Paul. And I have already provided the context for St. Irenaeus, and have already shown that Protestant historians admit he did not hold to Sola Scriptura as Protestants do today. When you say a handful of doctrines have been declared infallibly, you overlook the fact that we are bound by all the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and it is not just a handful. We also have all the infallible decrees and canons of Ecumenical Councils.

ZACH: 9.9. Regarding 2 Thessalonians 2:15, you've said "While it is highly possible that there was overlap between the two, it is also evident that there are items in his oral preaching that were not included in his written, otherwise it would be superfluous to command both forms be obeyed. "

JOE: Rome can and has asserted this many times, she has the authority to do so. Whatever is bound on earth is bound in Heaven, and God can not bind a lie (Titus 1:2). Rome has canonized many doctrines that come from Scripture or Tradition. And St. Paul clearly commands both forms to be obeyed. He says to hold fast to all he has taught, whether by letter or oral teaching. Since he says to fast to all of it, that is both. And it makes no sense to say this if one source is all contained up in another. This would have been the ideal time for him to preach on Sola Scriptura, but he does not. Nor does he prophecy it for the future.

ZACH: 10. Regarding the short form important questions.

10.1. You've said "We now have seen that what is preserved after the death of the Apostles are their writings and their unwritten teachings"

JOE: The unwritten teachings are acknowledged throughout the early Church, and the determination of what would make the canon was because bishops and councils made decisions. You are selective on when you choose to trust the decisions of the Church.

ZACH: 10.2. You've said "the unanimous consent of the Fathers is itself an infallible witness."

general consensus of the fathers, it certainly something that should be taken seriously, but it is not itself a standard; scripture is. And even if it were true, I doubt Rome can actually find unanimous consent on any issue throughout the early fathers.

JOE: I never said it came from Scripture. We do not hold to Sola Scriptura.

ZACH: 10.3. If as you say "Scripture says the revelation came through His Apostles", then with no more apostles, we can have no more revelation.

JOE: St. Clement wrote two letters while St. John was still alive. He was a friend of St. Paul’s, and a successor to St. Peter. Yet his two letters were not divine revelation. However, St. John’s Apocalypse is divine revelation. In the early Church, some thought St. Clement was inspired but the Apocalypse was not. The Church made a decision, and now no one questions it at all.

ZACH: 10.4. You've said "If [infant baptism] is a false teaching, a tradition of men, then it would be a heresy". I think we have to disagree here. Protestants do believe there are primary, secondary, and even tertiary issues, of which only primary issues would make one a heretic. There are obviously some issues that have not been dogmatically defined by Rome, where there is even now room for speculation, so this isn't novel to the Protestant view. We aren't having really an argument from scripture about infant baptism, but I and many others have made that argument in a different context.

JOE: I have responded to this already.

ZACH: 10.5.

JOE: At least you admit you wished we could return to councils. But Protestantism has no mechanism for such a thing. St. Athanasius clearly recognized the authority of the Council of Nicaea in this regard, writing, “The word of the Lord came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicea and abides forever” (Synodal Letter to the African Bishops). He reiterated this as well in his Defense of the Nicene Definition, saying that one was not free to disagree with the decisions made at the Council. “Athanasius Against the World” today would be “Athanasius Against Sola Scriptura.” The Protestant template has no way to actually accomplish this task of calling a Council if needed, proving it is not the template of the Bible or of history. It also reiterates why the Protestant model is built upon relativism. The truth is that Our Lord has one Body, one Bride. Not tens of thousands. His Bride adheres to His objective doctrine.

Who is going to call the Council for all Protestants? Who will make the binding decrees that all must agree to? If someone dissents and starts a new denomination opposed to this council, will they still be a “Christian” since they hold to their interpretation of the essentials?

Councils are called to clarify and expound upon dogmas that belong to Scripture and Tradition. And in the event that both sources do not provide explicit data, such as with the two Wills of Christ, then the Church must make a determination. Once she does, it will be protected from error, since whatever she binds is bound in Heaven, and God can not bind a lie.

ZACH: 10.6. Regarding coitus interreuptus and hormonal birth control, thank you for your caution. I appreciate it as given, but again, whatever Rome or church history has taught has to be subjected to the authority of Scripture. My fraternal caution to my Romanists friends would be to "not go beyond what is written" in Scripture.

JOE: All you can do is hope that your personal opinions on this topic are correct, otherwise you could be leading people to sin against God. And the first sect to cave on this was in 1930, so this shows how the spirit of the world corrupts edifices built upon sand. In Protestantism, there is no way to have absolute certainty in regards to this topic or a host of other moral questions.

ZACH: 11. Regarding your closing questions;

11.1. You asked "will you concede that there is a possibility that Infant Baptism was taught by the Apostles as the Fathers said"

No, I cannot. Infant Baptism is not biblical, and nowhere taught in Scripture.

11.2. You asked "would you admit to a possibility that there could be a flaw in your personal interpretation, or that of the Reformed Baptist church?"

11.3. You asked "Is it possible that the early Church was correct in Infant Baptism and Baptismal Regeneration?"

12. In conclusion, it would be incredibly difficult to convince me that equal weight should be given to what Rome calls sacred tradition as well as scripture. Any other extra biblical tradition

(1) Does not preserve verbatim Apostolic words (2) Cannot be identified which Apostle taught

(3) Cannot be traced as being taught to a specific church

(4) Many contradict scripture

(5) Are Difficult if not impossible to prove that churches believed it

(6) Is not specifically defined

(7) Was not meticulous preserved

(8) Is not recognized by churches councils

(9) Comes from uninspired, fallible, and sometimes errant authors

(10) Does not follow the pattern of the Old Testament or expectations of writing down God's revelation.

(11) Is by definition a less sure word of prophecy at best

Scripture can meet all of the above; nothing else can.

JOE: So you can not provide absolute certainty that your interpretation is correct, even though you have Scripture available. We can provide absolute certainty that our doctrines are correct because we have the weight of Scripture and Tradition behind them, coupled with the succession of Bishops that traces back to the first century and the binding decrees of Papal and Conciliar dogmas. Christianity ought to be absolutist in its doctrines on faith and morals, not relativistic.

I reiterate for a closing point to consider: There needs to be an infallible authority to determine which oral teachings are true, yet you don’t think an infallible authority is needed to determine which Scriptures were inspired. It is ludicrous to hold these two views simultaneously. It is an absolute contradiction in logic. How do you reconcile this? How can you hold that an infallible source is necessary to determine oral traditions but not written scriptures? You are perfectly fine accepting a Bible compiled by fallible men, but not oral tradition.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ZACH: Thanks again, Joe. I think we're winding this conversation down, so what I want to do is try to just answer briefly some things I perceive as misunderstandings, and maybe add some summary points. I'm happy to just pass over any points that we've already concluded.

1. Regarding Sola Ecclesia,

1.1. You said "If there is ever a dispute on what constitutes Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition, the Church can step in, to ensure that whatever is bound on earth has been bound in Heaven. "

This means the church is the final authority over scripture and tradition. In your tripod view, only one source has authority the other two. The church alone is the final infallible rule. Sola Ecclesia.

1.2. You "You made a point previously that an infallible source would be needed to determine what constitutes Sacred Tradition, yet you believe a fallible source was utilized to determine what constitutes Sacred Scripture. This is illogical"

That it is not a point I have made. I set forward criteria that we could apply the scripture and tradition, and noted tradition cannot meet any of these criteria that scripture can. Having an infallible source for determination was not one of those criteria. Slightly more on this in 2.2 below

1.3. You said " I only reiterate this here to make it very clear that you should not try to claim that the Fathers held to this view of Sola Scriptura. It is just better to be transparent on that. The Fathers clearly did not hold to Sola Scriptura"

I have it no point claimed that the Father's held to Sola Scriptura in the same way Protestants do. It would appear they held to a MUCH higher view of Scripture than Rome's current stance, as it would appear they held to something more like formal and material sufficiency. But again, I'm not here to debate what the father's did or didn't teach. But I don't mind citing them that father's high view of scriptures, which seems to be disparate from many of my Roman friends.

2. Regarding the specific criteria I provided.

2.1. I'm happy to stand by RC Sproul's comment. There is no infallible declaration of what is scripture, but there are inerrant declarations.

And again, let us hold any oral tradition to the same standards used to judge Jude and the Didache as canonical. Those oral traditions cannot be even traced to a specific apostle, or to what church body he taught such teachings to. I think we should hold oral tradition to the same standard as scripture; if we can't, we have reason to doubt.

2.2. You've said "I still do not understand how you claim we can rely on fallible men to make binding determinations on the canon, but in order to know teachings that were preached, we need an infallible source. "

Let me try to clarify. In trying to determine the question of Canon, we are asking if the sources themselves (scriptural documents) are inspired and inerrant and thus their authors (Apostles or Apostolic adjacent) are capable of inspiration and infallibilty. With regard to oral teachings, we know those source documents (the fathers writings) are not inspired or infallible, nor could the authors be. So now we are asking whether some fragment in a fallible document is infallible, from authors we know cannot be, and that fragment is not even the words of an apostle, just a summarized teaching. If we already know the document is valuable, why should we trust the uninspired authors summary? And we cannot apply any of the 11 criteria I already mentioned, so all we have is we to take the father's word for it. And I think we need a much higher standard for answering the question whether something is actually God-breathed.

2.3. You said " I stated at the onset that the issue is not specific words, but rather teaching"

But this is not a trivial point to gloss over; the fact that no one actually recorded the specific words of the Apostles is a glaring issue. Because the assertion required is that there certain dogmas that you must believe for salvation that neither of the Apostles nor any of their followers actually wrote down what the apostles said on the subject. You asked "Who has the authority to determine if these are inspired or man made?" I say let us look to what Paul says is God-breathed; scripture.

2.4 You asked me to "show us the historical pedigree where corrupted teachings came in"

And many Protestant scholars have done this, I'm not nearly as qualified to do it. What I can do is look to the scriptures and see that it does not align with what the father's taught. The historical analysis I leave to those much smarter than me. If you want me to refer you to some good books, I can certainly do that.

2.5. You've said "You say many teachings show up hundreds of years later, yet even when they show up early, you still deny them [...] You say the teachings were not meticulously preserved, yet when we show that they were, [...], you deny it"

But those are only two of the 11 criteria I presented. Even if I were to grant some of those teachings show up early, that's only one criteria. And no, none of those teachings have been so meticulously preserved as scripture.

3. Regarding quick questions

3.1. You've said "But you do not have certainty even on the canon since fallible men put it together"

But this is an assertion that we cannot have certainty unless the source is infallible. That's not something we believe. We believe fallible men can make inerrant decisions; e.g. they can get it right

This isn't only a problem for Protestants; if we say we need an infallible source to determine the Canon (the church), what infallible source determines who is the church? If it's the commands of Jesus, those come to us through scripture; but if we need the church to determine what is scripture, and we need the scripture to determine what is the church, we're in a big circle. If the authority of the church establishes the church, we have an even smaller circle.

And of course, this is another point in favor of formal sufficiency; when someone claims I should believe in the authority of the church because of what the Bible says (Matthew 16, Matthew 18, Acts 15, etc) that assumes I can read and understand what those passages mean. If I can't understand on my own what those passages mean, then I have to accept the authority of the church on the basis of the church. Which of course is rather circular, but it also begs the question if I can't understand the scripture, how can I understand the church. It's almost like formal sufficiency is an extension of basic reading comprehension; if books can be read and understood, then maybe the God breathed book can also be read and understood.

4. Regarding Justin

4.1. Happy to defer to the myriad of other Protestants scholars who disagree on what Justin meant.

4.2. You said "Who gets to decide? Well certainly not every lay person with a Bible. The Corinthians did not sit around debating Bible verses."

But the Bereans did just that, and they were commended for it.

4.3. John 3:5 says what it says and we can read it and understand it. Justin either aligned with scripture or he didn't.

4.4. You've said "It seems more apparent to me that you do not accept anything they said, because even on the topic of infant baptism, you thought it was an early corruption, but can not provide any historical data for that. You said Baptismal Regeneration was not a majority view until the late 4th century, but can not show any evidence of a different majority view prior to then"

Well, whether or not I can is an assertion without evidence. I don't mind admitting that I have not provided the historical data, but that's primarily because I'm not a scholar, and I'm not here to debate those topics. That information is available to anyone who wishes to look. And yes, anything any Church Father wrote is subject to the scrutiny of scripture.

6. Regarding infallibilty and councils

6.1.

You've said "I think it is time to admit that it is not correct to label yourself as a Reformed Catholic. You hold nothing in common with Catholic Bishops and Saints of early history."

Haha, no I'll keep using it, as this is something the earliest Protestant Reformers said of themselves (William Perkins even wrote a book by that name!). And I've clearly shown certain quotes that I very strongly agree with, so to say I hold NOTHING in common with them is ... just not true.

6.2.

No, Acts 1:20 describes a replacement apostle; Matthias replaced Judas. Just look at the criteria the apostles list in verse 21; no Bishop after the death of the Apostles could meet those criteria.

6.3.

No, we don't wink at the teachings. We simply recognize a Christian can be in error on some issues and not a heretic.

In conclusion, and responding to your concluding remarks, I will just say this; let us hold any extra biblical tradition to the same standard as the scripture. If any tradition cannot meet those criteria, we have reason to doubt it's Apostolic nature. Of course, there are no traditions that can actually meet those criteria; the scripture alone meets all of them. As a Reformed Catholic, I am happy to stand on the more sure word of prophecy that is scripture against all the traditions and councils of men.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOE: Zach,

For my conclusion I simply want to lay out some overriding points that I believe have firmly been established through this exchange.

First of all, I appreciate your charitable tone throughout this experience, as well as your willingness to engage in the topic and dig into the research. I can tell that truth is important for you, and I implore you to take some of these points to study and prayer, so that you can see the truth behind this statement: Our Lord founded one Church, and the idea of denominationalism was never intended to be definitional of His Church. His Church is composed of many believers who take Him to be not just their Lord and Savior, but also their King. They are bound to hold to everything He and His Apostles revealed until public revelation ceased. This body of doctrine was well known to the hearers of the Apostles as they learned from them in person, through oral teaching, and by written epistles. This body of doctrine was then handed on to successors of the Apostles, to be preserved so that the Church could be a house that was built on the rock of objective truth, not the sands of relativism. It was not rooted in just a handful of so-called core doctrines, she was grounded in the entire deposit of faith as it pertains to faith and morals. And whenever controversies were to arise, she would follow the example set down for her from the 1st century and convene in Councils to make determinations.

I believe some important principles have been demonstrated throughout this back and forth exchange.

Firstly, you have admitted that there are no explicit references to Sola Scriptura to be found anywhere in Scripture. To be fair, you stated this from the onset, and thus sought to prove Sola Scriptura through logical deduction. However, I have shown the holes to be found in those deductions. Every attempt made to vindicate Sola Scriptura even implicitly through passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 or 1 Corinthians 4:6 have been answered, and answered with immediate context as well as wider context. I have shown these passages in no way contradict anything that the Church teaches. And so, there are no passages to lean on, even implicitly or referenced in deductions, to vindicate Sola Scriptura.

Secondly, I have shown the circular nature of your position by pointing to the practice of the Church in the first century, which shows Christians were bound to hold to divine revelation whether it came through oral preaching or written epistle. There is no indication mentioned even remotely anywhere in the New Testament that once public revelation ceased, the core essentials will have all been contained in the written portion only, which would then serve

as the sole rule of faith. As well, we see the Fathers make numerous references to teachings that they say came from the preaching of the Apostles. We see harmony on these teachings throughout different Fathers, and we see the Fathers emphasizing the importance of knowing true doctrine as connected to the succession of Bishops following the Apostles.

Thirdly, you were able to admit that the oral preaching of the Apostles, called the “true Word of God” by St. Paul, ought to also be referenced as “God-breathed,” showing that in the first century, there were two sources of divine revelation and both were God-breathed. This was a powerful admission since the exchange started with you emphasizing Scripture’s uniqueness as being the only source of revelation that can be called God-breathed. Having demonstrated that both sources, the oral and the written, were God-breathed, we then pointed to examples in the Fathers showing teachings that were preserved from the oral preaching. The only difference here is that you could not trust their take on this if it happened to contradict your private interpretation of Scripture. This places us in the quandary of having to decide between the Fathers who claimed to be preserving teachings gained from oral preaching or Protestant pastors of the 21st century who can only agree on a handful of core doctrines and then disagree on everything else and thus splinter into more factions.

Fourthly, we see that you made attempts to cite St. Irenaeus and St. Augustine as holding to some primitive form of Sola Scriptura by citing quotes referencing the authoritative nature of Scripture. However, I demonstrated that these statements are exactly in line with the Faith, and further, I provided immediate and wider context again to demonstrate what they believed. You had cited St. Irenaeus saying heretics do not rely on the authority of Scripture. I then showed the immediate context in which he then says heretics do not rely on the authority of Tradition, and then those same heretics can not appeal to the succession of Bishops as he can. This shows a 180 of the point you were trying to assert. St. Irenaeus is arguing against those who deny the authority of Scripture and Tradition and Apostolic Succession. This goes against Protestantism, not the other way around. You made the admission eventually that these Fathers did not hold to your understanding of Sola Scriptura.

Fifthly, when possible, I cited unbiased conservative Protestant scholarship and historians to show that they also held that the early Church did not share the same views as Protestantism today does.

Sixthly, I showed that just because one finds references to Fathers citing the authority of Scripture, this does not prove that these Fathers held to Sola Scriptura. I have used Scripture myself throughout this exchange to demonstrate the truth of the matter.

Seventhly, I showed the illogical inconsistency of saying that we can rely on fallible men to tell us which books are infallible and inspired, but yet when it comes to Tradition, we need infallible certainty. And even then, when we show that the Church possesses this gift precisely to help us not wander into heresy through private opinion, it does not satisfy you since it does not fit within your Sola Scriptura paradigm.

Please put serious into thought into the points raised concerning Baptismal Regeneration and Infant Baptism, which was clearly part of the life and fabric of the early Church but does not exist within the Reformed Baptist sect. Think on the points raised regarding artificial contraception, and divorce and remarriage. On doctrines of morality, we can not resort to best guesses and opinions, lest we teach others something which objectively offends God.

Having established these points, we see that you were unable to demonstrate Sola Scriptura from Scripture and also from history. This means it was Protestantism that introduced the novel idea of Sola Scriptura, which classifies it as a tradition of men. This then shows that Protestantism indeed is a different religion from the Christian Faith established by Our Lord on St. Peter and the Apostles. If we can not find Sola Scriptura being taught in Scripture, being practiced in the first century, or being believed in the early Church, that is because Sola Scriptura did not exist yet in history.

Nina Leone

Sola Scriptura: Christian Doctrine, or Man Made Heresy? A Catholic vs. Protestant Debate on the Bible and the Early Church

Private Interpretation & Sola Scriptura: Heresies From Hell (Copy)