Sola Scriptura and the Canon

The introduction

This article is for those Catholics who encounter debates with Protestants on the topic of the canon of Scripture and why it differs between our two groups. If you wish to dive into the history of the canons and understand in part why the different Christian groups have different canons of Scripture then you can go check out the Brief Compendium on this, but in truth the document is only brief when you compare it to the amount of actual history and reading that is required to fully understand all the details surrounding the development of the canons. But that is not what this article is about, rather it is to address the specific question of Sola Scriptura and address the Protestant's propositions and provide Catholics a response. This will not be all-encompassing as a response, just as none of the articles shared here are, because a "full response" would likely merit the writing of a book so that the history, propositions, objections, responses, and apologetic recommendations could be fully fleshed out. But this is intended to be a moderately sized article, not something expansive, so think of this as a briefing on the basics you should know when going into such a conversation where there is going to be debate on the canon or Sola Scriptura.

Before going further, I want to make sure that the purpose of this document is understood correctly. I am not writing here to war against Protestants, to condemn them as heretics, or in any way besmirch them. This is written for Catholics, and if a Protestant reads this then I would like to apologize at my lack of gentleness in addressing the common Protestant positions, I am intending to equip Catholics in the debate over the canon of Scripture, not have a dialogue with our Christian brethren. This is like a class, a place where information is shared, not a debate club. The Catholics reading this should understand the way in which I am presenting the information is not how you should be presenting things to Protestant Christians at all. This, once again, is a repository of information that you should learn from. You don't rely on a dictionary for debate, you practice nuance and apologetics and rhetorical skills to meet a person where they're at in order to bring them around to the truth.

To start off we should define our terms and explain exactly what it is we Catholics are opposed to. It's a good idea to define terms in any debate, but most especially within our Christian faith should we do this so that our brothers and sisters do not misunderstand us and we do not misunderstand them. Good-faith acts only serve to strengthen the relationship between two good-faith people.

Sola Scriptura

What exactly is Sola Scriptura? It is an idea that has popped up a few times in Christian history and has become a dogma for many Protestants, it finds itself present in the Quarinists of Islam, and in parts of Mormonism, with the words meaning "Scripture Alone" and the sentiment it's communicating meaning "the Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice". According to those who hold to Sola Scriptura, all essential truths necessary for salvation and spiritual life are found in the Bible, either explicitly or implicitly; as well, no other infallible authority is recognized beyond the scriptures, and to assert there being any authority outside of Scripture is, in a sense, heretical, or at least reprehensible.

I will speak on Sola Scriptura in a moment and expound on it, but before I do that I wish to mention Prima Scriptura, which is a sister-dogma to Sola Scriptura while being different. While Sola Scriptura essentially says that your traditions and practices may only be found in Scripture, Prima Scriptura is the idea that you can have practices that are not explicitly or implicitly from Scripture so long as it is not prohibited in Scripture and that the practices and traditions do not overshadow Scripture. Prima Scriptura means "Scripture First", so it is not just Scripture as an authority for those who adhere to this dogma, but there is no other authority on earth that comes close to that of Scripture. I mention this second idea of Scriptural authority held by some Protestants because sometimes you will enter a debate believing that they are Sola Scriptura when they are really Prima Scriptura which requires similar but different arguments.

And where did these views of Scripture originate from? Some will point to periods early in Christian history, but you only see it as a widespread idea at the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, so that is where we will speak of it as its origin. A Protestant may posit that the idea came from long before then, saying "the Church persecuted anyone who held to the idea and it wasn't until Martin Luther that the truth of the authority of Scripture was made known to everyone". Perhaps it is true that the Church persecuted anyone holding to this belief, perhaps not, that's not what this article is about. Whether or not the Church persecuted someone for this belief is only the first question, with the next question being whether the Church was right to persecute this belief or not. That's an article for another day, we are covering a different topic right now.

I've described Sola Scriptura as a dogma. What do I mean by dogma? It is a belief held by a group as something you must adhere to, and if you reject a stated dogma then you are considered to be either a heretic or not a member of the group because of the rejection of said dogma. Protestants view all the other Christians who reject Sola Scriptura in primarily two ways, one or the other: if you do not believe in Sola Scriptura then you are not a Christian; or, if you do not believe in Sola Scriptura then you are wrong in something essential, but you remain a Christian. Depending on which Protestant you are speaking to, they may view you as the first or second, which we will refer to as heretic or unorthodox, respectively.

Self disproving

And now we move onto the Catholic's response to Sola Scriptura so that you may be prepared for when the topic comes up in conversation. Typically the conversation regarding the canon and authority of Scripture comes up when a Protestant says "that's not in the Bible" and a Catholic or other Apostolic Christian responds with "yeah it is" and references a verse which the two Christians disagree on the meaning of; or, another possibility is that we will simply say "so?" in response. Christians who trace their holy orders back to the Apostles have never relied solely on Scripture and so these Christians don't necessarily feel the need to cite Scripture as a source for a belief they hold. Protestant Christians on the other hand do feel this need, because of their belief in Sola Scriptura. This causes difficulty in conversations around what is "right" and "wrong" in regards to practices and beliefs as Christians, because both groups are operating from different sets of criteria. In order to have a fruitful conversation you must understand each other, which is why you must always be ready to address the idea that Scripture alone is where you should gain all of your beliefs.

Typically there are two methods that you will employ when speaking about Scripture, the defensive and offensive approach. Offense is the strongest, and so we will speak about that second, first we will go into the informational approach of the defensive.

Often the question of the canon of the Bible will come up when speaking about Scripture, either because you reference a work of Scripture that Protestants do not recognize, or they just wish to directly address the fact that we have different canons. Protestants have 66 books in their canon, Catholics have 73 as do the Copts, Eastern Orthodox have 76, and Ethiopic Christians have 81 in their canon.

And why should the Protestants give credence to these "extra" books? Well, because the writers of the New Testament believed the "expanded canon" to be the correct one. There are two versions of the Old Testament books, one in Hebrew and one in Greek, with the Greek possessing more books than the Hebrew list. If you go through all the times the New Testament (NT) references the Old Testament (OT) you will find, depending on the scrutiny and criteria you use, that nine-tenths it is referencing the Greek version of the text at the high end, or at the low end the Greek version is referenced two-thirds of the time - in other words the Greek OT is referenced at least twice as many times as the Hebrew OT copy.

Hold on a minute, am I saying that the Hebrew and Greek differ from each other? Yes, not always to significant degrees, but in ways that you can tell whether it is the Greek or Hebrew version which is being referenced. For example, in Matthew 1:23 it references Isaiah 7:14 and says a “virgin” shall conceive. In the Greek version, Isaiah says “virgin”, but in the Hebrew it says a “young woman” shall conceive, and so Luke favors the Greek version of the prophecy over the Hebrew. And in John 6:31 it references Psalm 78:24 and says “He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.” This is word-for-word what the Psalm says in Greek, but in Hebrew it says instead that he gave them “food” or “grain” from heaven. The Hebrew is similar, but John is quoting from the Greek version of Scripture. And so, because the New Testament authors see it as authoritative, we may then do the same.

But you protest, "What does this have to do with whether a person should accept the 'extra' books in the Bible?" I will try to be brief in my response. It is because we find the seven books not reverenced by Protestants in this Greek OT, the one reverenced by the NT authors, and they are absent from the Hebrew version of OT texts. The writers of the New Testament believed the Greek OT to be authoritative, that it was Inspired, that it was Scripture, and so we may do the same.

"But the New Testament doesn't reference these 'extra' books, so the authors did not think that they had any authority as Scripture." If being referenced in the New Testament confers canonicity then we have a problem since Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Obadiah, Jonah, and Zephaniah are not referenced in the NT at all; and, if referencing something in the NT were to signal that a thing is Scripture then 1 Enoch should be included in the canons since it is referenced in Jude 1:14-15. So this is a silly argument, and it should be quickly pointed out that it does not make any sense. There are instances where you will find the "extra" books Apostolic Christians have in their canon referenced in the NT, but as mentioned this criteria does not follow and so I feel no need to list them out.

And now, on to the offensive in the discussion, which will be brief. I find it helpful to first point out why the objections Protestants hold against the canon do not make sense when you dig into them before moving into the part where you explain why Sola Scriptura makes no sense. Once you have done that, then this is what you need to know for going on the offensive.

Let's return to what Sola Scriptura is in itself. It is the belief, the idea, that all beliefs and practices which a Christian must believe can be found in Scripture, and that you are not bound to believe or practice things not found implicitly or explicitly in Scripture. Meaning, all things that you must believe regarding the faith must be found in Scripture.

There is an issue that arises from this, which I will need a moment to explain. Sola Scriptura says that all beliefs and practices of Christians must be found in Scripture. Sola Scriptura is a belief. If you must believe in Sola Scriptura, where is it in the Bible? It is not in the Bible, either explicitly or implicitly, therefore based on the criteria of Sola Scriptura, you must reject Sola Scriptura.

And then the additional argument, one which is not going to be as convincing to Protestants and yet will still be useful, is asking them why they are the only Christians which reject the books all other Christians have believed to be Scripture. You can find Church Fathers from the first centuries referring to the seven deuterocanonical books as inspired Scripture, you see that at least the Christians of Rome revered these books since 382 in the Council of Rome, and for the many centuries following these books are seen as Scripture. You have the Council of Florence in 1442 affirming for the fifth time that Catholics have a seventy-three book canon of Scripture. You can find many more instances of great saints such as Augustine of Hippo who is revered by all who call the deuterocanonicals Scripture.

But then some Protestants may say this is an accretion, that the "Roman Church" added these books in the Council of Trent, and Protestants are just going back to how the canon used to be. But all one has to do is look at the schisms from the Catholic Church and view their canons to see that this is a falsehood. In 431 you have the Church of the East break away, then in 451 we see the Oriental Orthodox split, then in 1054 the Eastern Orthodox split. And yet, with each of these Churches, all affirm the seventy-three books with some affirming more as Scripture - but we all agree that these seventy-three are canonical. Never in the history of Christianity, not until 1517 with Martin Luther inventing a new form of Christianity, do we see a sixty-six book canon of Scripture. If there is any accretion, it came from Luther.

But is it in Scripture?

Some will come forth and have verses that seemingly prove that Sola Scriptura is in the Bible, with only one being common and something close to strong as an argument which is what we will look at. But, with verses that allegedly prove Sola Scriptura, a Protestant must still contend with other verses which show that a good Christian must adhere to the traditions communicated by the Apostles, ones that are written and those communicated by word of mouth. We will go into those verses which cause a Protestant some difficulty in a moment, but first we'll look at the verse which they use to bolster their position, 2 Timothy 3:15-17.

15 and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

Some translations render the Greek word ὠφέλιμος in verse 16 as "sufficient" - but this is a poor translation of the word. The word is sometimes mistranslated so that 16 reads as "All scripture is inspired by God and sufficient for teaching", and again, this is a bad translation. The Greek word means "profitable" or "useful", and does not mean "all that you need". It was not until the Protestants started seeing the inherent issue with Sola Scriptura and started making their own translations of Scripture that the verse started to be translated in such a way. And so, this verse far from proves Sola Scriptura, since it has nothing at all to do with the concept and only communicates that Scripture is good and useful. Nowhere else, ever, have we seen that Greek word translated as "sufficient", only in this verse, and only in the Protestant translations of Scripture.

And so, we are back to where we just were - Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible, therefore Sola Scriptura is false. This helps a lot in discussions regarding justifying Catholic practices once you have this established. If you ask someone the question "Must you believe in Sola Scriptura?" if they answer no, then they cannot oppose any beliefs held by Catholics or others by using the standard of "that's not in the Bible" because there is no law, rule, or verse where it says everything you must do has to be found explicitly as a practice in the Bible. If you can get someone to agree that it is not dogmatic everyone to believe in Sola Scriptura then they will have a much harder time debating you. "So what if it's not in the Bible?" Nearly all that we do as Catholics does have its roots in Scripture and we should lean into those roots in the discussion, but it is a good idea to establish that you don't have to rely solely on Scripture when having this discussion.

But if they answer yes to the question and say you must believe in Sola Scriptura then that begs the original question of "Where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?" If all things we must believe are found in Scripture, and we must believe in Scripture Alone, then where is it in Scripture? You cannot find Scripture Alone taught in the Bible, and therefore Sola Scriptura disproves itself.

Hold fast to traditions

A third approach to the first question someone may take is that it is not a yes-or-no question on whether Scripture is or is not the ultimate authority, but rather that you should give deference to it because you can't trust the words or traditions of men. In reality this is just an attempt to still say "yes" to the question that you must believe in Scripture Alone while trying to get around the fact that this "dogma" is not found in Scripture. But this does not work either, because the traditions and leaders of the Church are things we are meant to follow and obey according to Scripture itself. Here in a moment I will show you the verses, but I will quickly address this third form of the argument.

Some will say object and say “Sola Scriptura (or Prima Scriptura) is a guideline and not a doctrine”, which really just comes out to being Prima Scriptura. But, if you say this then on what ground do you criticize other Christians for not following this guideline? If this is simply a guideline that you’ve adopted, why is it the case that others must adopt it as well? If it is not binding, then why do you try to bind yourself and others to this idea? “Because Scripture is the only authority”, hm? Please show that claim in Scripture. Or, "because Scripture is the highest authority" - show me where you get that idea other than from the mouths of men. If God says that Scripture is the highest authority, it would be written down, and we would see that in Scripture - and yet we do not see this.

What we do see written in Scripture is the command to hold to traditions handed down by the Apostles. We also see instances in Scripture where people maintained things that are not in Scripture, traditions handed down to them by the fathers of the Hebrew faith. There are a number of both, so hold on as we dive into those now.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

Traditions, spoken or written, not only written. Some English Bibles will have the passage say instead “hold fast to the teachings” and that was a choice by the translators. The most popular translation that I am aware of that did this is the New International Version of the Bible, which changed the translation of the word “tradition”. The original Greek word in question is paradoseis (παραδόσεις), and when you compare its use to other parts of the New Testament for the NIV you will see that when it speaks of paradoseis in the positive it translates it to “teachings” and when translated in the negative it translates to “traditions”, as if to say tradition is bad. Other translations do not do this and instead correctly and consistently translate the word to “tradition”. The author of the passage is communicating that traditions are good, specifically the ones passed on by the Apostles, and that we should adhere to them.

1 Corinthians 11:1

1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

It does not say “follow the instructions in this letter” but instead to follow Paul’s example. What was his example? We see a lot of what he did written in Acts, and displayed in his letters to the Churches, but there is also much we do not see, and he says we are to follow his example, which is him trying to follow the example of Christ.

1 Thessalonians 2:13

13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.

“When you received the word of God, which you heard from us” not “which we wrote for you”. Oral tradition, which is how much of the teaching of the Apostles was communicated, just as the Jews before them maintained oral tradition to pass on the stories and teachings handed down by God to Abraham and Moses and others.

2 Timothy 2:2

2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.

What is it that Paul said? We can speculate that it was some of what he wrote in his letters, but we do not know that with any certainty. But apparently Timothy knows what Paul said and is instructed to pass them along, but not write them down.

Matthew 2:23:

23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

Nowhere in Scripture is it found that he should be called a Nazarene. This is a tradition held by the Jews from outside the written Old Testament. A tradition, not a law written down.

Matthew 23:2-3:

2 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Moses’ seat is something that is not ever spoken of in Scripture until now. It is a tradition held outside of Scripture, one that the Jews obviously believed in hence why Christ references it, but is not something written down in the canon. This is further evidence that the Jews held onto traditions which were not written into Scripture.

1 Corinthians 10:4:

4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

This is a reference that is less recognizable than the other verses. The Old Testament speaks nothing of a rock accompanying the Jews in their time wandering in Exodus, but in rabbinic tradition they teach that the rock which Moses struck and from which water flowed would follow the people of Israel through the wilderness. [See Tosefta Sukkah 3:11f., Pseudo-Philo Biblical Antiquities 10:7.]

Jude 9:

9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

This story is not found in Scripture and so was oral tradition handed down from the Old Testament to the New. According to Jude, Moses’ body was taken away from the earth, but we do not see this anywhere referenced in the Old Testament.

Other Examples in Scripture

There are other examples of oral tradition in the New Testament, but I do not think they are as significant or as obvious as the other references I’ve already listed, so I wanted to very quickly and in brief mention those here so that you could see them as well. And, since these are less impactful than the other verses (by my estimation) I won’t list them the same way as I did the others.

A fun one, I think, is the “golden rule” that we have in Matthew 7:12 for “treat others as you wish to be treated”. The saying is actually older than Christ, coming from Rabbi Hillel in about 20 B.C. in Shabbat 31a where he says “What you do not like should be done to you, do not to your fellow; this is the whole Torah, all the rest is commentary.” And for a Protestant Christian the book of Tobit is not considered Scripture, but you find this idea in Tobit 4:15 where it says “And what you hate, do not do to any one” - Tobit having been written long before Rabbi Hillel walked the earth.

In the book of James the writer tells us that it is because of the prayers of Elijah that there was no rain in Israel for three years. If you look at 1 Kings 17, the passage in question, you will not see it written that Elijah prayed, but in rabbinic tradition Elijah held to be a man constantly in prayer. You can find the Jewish traditions on Elijah being a man of prayer on your own, but if you wish to read more on this you can check out the study by P. H. Davids on the Epistle of James to see more of these references.

In 2 Timothy 3:8 you see Paul name the two magicians in Pharaoh's court in the Exodus named as Jannes and Jambres. That is not in Scripture, it’s an oral tradition handed down by the Jewish people. In Hebrews 11:37 it says that the prophets and judges of the Old Testament were sawn in half for their faith, but we do not see that anywhere in the Old Testament. In Acts 20:35 we see Paul quote Christ as having said “It is more blessed to give than to receive”, which is interesting because this saying of Christ is not recorded anywhere in the Gospels.

Look at John 21:25 if you would please. It says Jesus did many other things that were not written down, but as just a moment ago we see some of these things were handed down by oral tradition to Paul and others. Authority was not found only what was written down, but also in the words said by Christ and by those whom He left to look over His Church on earth. This verse is just one example of the reasons why Apostolic Christians hold to traditions - we don't believe everything taught by Christ is written in Scripture, and this is proven in Scripture itself.

I want to make a final point to close out this section and move on. Sola Scriptura as a doctrine would not have been possible in the Early Church. Paul’s Epistles were the first New Testament documents written, and the first accepted as Scripture, so we did not even have the Gospels at the start of our faith. Over time all the documents which we now revere as Scripture were written, but the debate over which should be considered to be canon took a long time to resolve. The very earliest we see the list of books which we now call the New Testament in the arrangement that we have today was by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his letter from AD367. He proposed that only these are the Scripture for the New Testament - but then we still did not have a canon for the Old Testament. Then there was the Council of Rome in 382 which put forth the 73 book canon held by Catholics today. Aspects of the council are disputed today, but there is still the Council of Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397 and 419, and additional later councils which confirm the 73 book canon with the list of 27 New Testament books.

I won’t get into the weeds on the councils I mentioned and the listed canons, if you want to read more then you can go check out the Brief Compendium for a skimming of info on the development of the Biblical canons. Before there was a widely accepted canon in Christianity you would find that City Churches had their own declared list of canon - with "canon" meaning at that time a list of books which were allowed to be read on Sunday for the liturgy. Some Churches excluded some or all of Paul’s letters, or rejected 2 Peter and 2 & 3 John and Revelation, or they included other works like the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the letters of Polycarp, and the Epistle of Barnabas among others. Christians didn’t know what should be considered as Scripture for a while, there was no “Christian canon” of the Bible for a very long time. It was not just the New Testament books that were debated, but also the Old Testament, with it taking hundreds of years for the Church to really come to a sort of consensus on which books are in the Old Testament. Determining canon is not so simple and clean as so many seem to believe. It is messy, difficult, and takes a long time.

Protestant Traditions Not Found in Scripture

I will repeat myself once again, this is not a document meant to war against Protestants, this is just for explaining the beliefs held by Catholics and where we get them from. This section is for pointing out some inconsistencies held by Protestant Christians in regards to the “that’s not in the Bible” objection against Catholics. I will highlight certain things practiced by Protestants that you cannot find in Scripture, or things that are not the same as you find in Scripture. Once again, not to bash these Christians, but to show that if they hold to the principle of Sola Scriptura that it will be applied to them as well.

Sunday worship:

Nowhere in Scripture will you find it commanded that Sunday is the new sabbath. In Genesis, and in the 10 Commandments in Exodus they are told to keep holy the day of the Lord, which is Sabbath, Saturday. It was due to the tradition of early Christians started observing Sunday as their new sabbath since Christ rose on Sunday, the first day of the week. You will see some passages in Scripture talking about Christians gathering on the first day of the week (Sunday) but nowhere in Scripture is the weekly worship or the day of rest moved from the last day to the first day of the week. The only commands for gathering to honor God are for Saturday, not Sunday.

We also see in the early Church that Christians would continue to gather in the synagogue and the Temple on Saturday in continuation of the Jewish practices, but would also gather on Sunday. It was not until later that Sunday became our "holy day" and became the day which all Christians gathered.

The Our Father:

Here is the text of the typical Our Father prayer found in Scripture:

Our Father, who art in heaven,

hallowed be thy name;

thy kingdom come;

thy will be done;

on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our trespasses,

as we forgive those who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation;

but deliver us from evil.

The additional text of "For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours, now and forever, amen." is not found in the Bible. It is theorized that this additional portion was added on by a presbyter early in Church history as a doxology and many still use it in prayers, but it is not the Scriptural prayer. If you choose to recite the Our Father prayer and you hold to Sola Scriptura then you should never add on the doxology at the end as many argue using Deuteronomy 4:2, which says “You must neither add anything to what I command you nor take away anything from it”. Do not add or take away from Scripture, so do not change the Our Father prayer.

The sinner's prayer:

This is the prayer often shared by Protestants that you must say to be saved. Of course you must repent and believe in Christ, but saying the prayer to have Christ “enter into your heart” is something you are usually asked to do. Here is a typical example of it:

“Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe You died for my sins and rose from the dead. I turn from my sins and invite You to come into my heart and life.”

If this is how you accept that this is how you start a relationship with God and are saved, you should know this is nowhere in Scripture. Scripture only says to repent, be baptized, and believe (these three criterion will be written about in another, future article) and does not require this prayer to be said.

The Trinity:

You won't find the Trinity stated in the Bible. The Father and the Son are explicit, but the "Spirit of God" is only defined as a distinct Person outside of Scripture. The Holy Spirit at different times of history, by only using Scripture, has been understood as the spirit of either the Father or the Son being sent forth into the world. And you will not find in Scripture where it says that each Person is coequal, that one Person is not greater than the other.

This is the rationale used by Mormons, Muslims, Jehova’s Witnesses, and others when they deny the Trinity. Where is it in the Bible? You can find it implied throughout Scripture, but you never find it stated as fact for certain. We had to have a council in Nicea to settle this because so many people were disagreeing about this. If you hold to Scripture Alone as your basis for theology then you cannot shoot down the idea that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate persons because that’s not an obviously heterodox belief when you look at Scripture on its own.

Take for example John 10:30 which says “I and the father are one.” Go and read the whole passage, for yourself, but based on this passage many Christians of long ago took to this mean that the Father and the Son are literally the same person with no divisibility and that Christ is the form of the Father descended to earth and the Holy Spirit is the power of God being sent out. Still one God, no Trinity.

The canon of Scripture they hold:

Nowhere in the Bible will you find any declaration of any type of canon in Scripture. It is tradition that Protestants hold onto the books that they do. Each major branch of Christianity has its own canon of the Bible, and each uses tradition to say that theirs is correct. They use tradition to maintain their current canons, else they should change it because new evidence is arising for the validity of other ancient books that Jews other than the Pharisitical sect held to be Scripture, as well as some within that very sect.

“Well, I follow the Bible that Christ used, not the one used by Catholics.” Which Bible? The Jewish people did not have a canon until (at the soonest) a few hundred years after Christ died. There is no evidence of an established canon for the Jews until around the time the Christians decided on their own canon. The Ethiopian Jews have an Old Testament larger than the Jews of Jerusalem, and the canon held by Jews today comes from the Pharisee sect of Judaism which was the only sect of Jews that survived after the destruction of the Second Temple - the very same group that Christ very frequently combatted with in Scripture. The canon held by the Jews today is the canon decided by the only surviving group of Jews, a school of thought often challenged by Christ, established long after Christ started His Church. Do you truly think using the Pharisee canon is a good argument to use against Apostolic Christians?

And more on that, the Jews do not recognize the canonicity of the New Testament, so we do not care what canon they hold. And to restate this, in the New Testament the book of Jude references the book of Enoch, so apparently Simon the Zealot thought Enoch to be Scripture. The book of Hebrews references a story in 2 Maccabees. Jerome, who was called upon to translate Scripture into Latin for the early Church, thought that the Deuterocanonical books should not be present (something Protestants often bring up) and yet he translated them anyway because he knew that deciding the canon was not up to him alone. Also, when you look at Jerome’s writings regarding the Deuterocanonical books he said he was “speaking for the Jews” in his protestations to including them in the canon, he was not speaking for himself. Jerome, according to his own words, did not actually oppose the “seven extra books” but was giving a voice to those who were unhappy with their inclusion. You can say that Jerome opposed the books, but then Catholics will come back and say "but then he recanted and said he only opposed them because of the Jews".

“But the Council of Jamnia established the Jewish canon, we know this.” The council that argued that Ruth, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes should not be considered Scripture? The same council that assumed Sirach (a book called “apocrypha” by Protestants) was indeed Scripture. The same council that convened sixty years after Christ had already died, after His Church was established and thriving and was spreading across the world. Not only do historians now agree there was no such thing as “the Council of Jamnia”, we Christians are not beholden to it since it is not a Christian Council, and finally we see from what info we have from the gathering at Jamnia there was no canon established at all. The men all left with no decision made on what constituted Scripture.

If you study the history of the development of Scripture you will find that it’s not a simple story of "this is the Bible, then Catholics added more books". The Eastern Orthodox have a different Bible, the Oriental Christians have a different Bible, Protestants have a different Bible, Catholics have a different Bible. The Catholics have had their canon defined since the Council of Rome in A.D. 382.

If you choose to maintain a 66 book canon then you may do so, but there is no basis for it before Martin Luther assembled his canon. If you wish to argue that yours is the true canon, we may debate on that, but you cannot say things such as “Catholics added books to the Bible” because that is patently false. If you wish to say that the Bible held by the Catholics (and the Bibles held by other Christian groups) is not correct because God told Martin Luther what the correct canon is, then we can argue on Lutherian points and go from there. But your canon is the right one “just because” will not cut it.

Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura:

I mentioned this in the introduction to this section, but there is no Scriptural evidence for this theology or philosophy. It is a tradition held onto by the Reformers in the sixteenth century, and is a tradition held by Protestants today. You will find no Scriptural basis for this belief, it is a tradition.

Celebration of Holy Days:

In the Bible we are not told to celebrate such things as Christmas and Easter, yet most Christians do celebrate it. Why? There is nothing wrong with it, we are not bound to only celebrate the things laid out in the bible, but why do we not celebrate the things we are told to in the Bible? The Sabbath was already spoken on, but what about the Passover? In Exodus 12:14 God commands that the Chosen People should observe the Passover throughout the generations. Where do Christ or the New Testament writers say we should no longer observe this feast? Speaking of tradition, the first Christians did continue to celebrate Passover alongside the Jews, but eventually that died off as they became more distinct in their practices and traditions. Then there is the feast of the Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, Trumpets, Atonement, and Tabernacles which were all in the book of Leviticus. According to Numbers 9:13 if you do not keep to the feasts then you were to be cut off from the community - and if it was so important, then perhaps we should celebrate it to this day.

Or, perhaps not. That is my point in all of this. We are a new creation, we are a renewed people because of Christ. He did not come to abolish the old ways, but to fulfill and change them. He never says to stop observing Passover, but we do not observe it anymore due to Tradition handed down by the Church and which we maintain now. By the authority given by Christ to His Apostles, which has been handed down to the bishops, do we determine the Christian practices that we are to observe.

Closing

Now, to begin closing out this article. In all of apologetics we must always keep in mind 1 Corinthians 13:1 which says:

If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

Do not seek out a fight, do not look to "win" the argument. You should be trying to win the heart of the one you are arguing against. If you cannot communicate with love, perhaps you should not communicate at all. The goal is always the conversion of the heart towards God, to draw a person nearer to our Lord. If the goal becomes victory at the expense of another, then abandon your goal and walk away. Take what you have read to day and apply it, absorb it, be prepared to make yourself a witness to the truth of God, and speak with love on what is true so that these whom you speak to may shed a self-imposed dogma and draw nearer to God.

Written for VME Catholic, by Ethan Hall