re: Venial Sin my butt!

quote:

---

Surely Jesus/the Trinity provided the Christians of AD 40, 50, 60 with sufficient means to know, practice, and carry on the evangelism of the Faith without a closed, complete, bound, and common Bible.

---

Dr. James White sort of touched on this in a debate with Trent Horn last weekend.

During cross-examination, Dr. White admitted that sola scriptura couldn't have been true during the period of Apostolic Revelation, because not all of what would become scripture had been written.

(I would argue that if sola scriptura were true, the period of Divine Revelation is precisely when God would have made this known, yet he didn't)

He further admitted it was not able to be practiced prior to the late 4th century councils, because the canon wouldn't be defined until then.

Finally, he failed to show from scripture or any early church father when sola scriptura became the authority.

Instead, he stated that scripture was the sole authority for the Jews who lived after Malachi (even though there were several different groups of Jews, all with WILDLY different canons) but before Jesus, and so it necessarily followed that it was also true immediately following the death of the last apostles, totally contradicting himself in the process.

quote:

---

The Protestant cannot logically explain how the faithful were given any deposit of Faith or authoritative instrument for instruction/Christian formation in the years between AD 33 and AD 382.

---

Certainly can. The Scriptures were completed by 100 AD. Prior to that, some NT Scriptures existed and the Apostles, themselves, were providing teaching that were later written down and received as Scripture.

quote:

---

They have to either dismiss the period all together or invent a man-made "Scriptural Precursor" period which affords the early Church with a different version of Scripture.

---

Why dismiss that period? The Apostles were alive, teaching the Church what God wanted them to know. Those same teachings that were necessary for faith and life of the Church were written down in letters and manuscripts that would be received as Scripture.

quote:

---

No Protestant will honestly answer what Scripture means in 34 AD, just as they won't answer any serious questions concerning Apostolic Succession.

---

I'm happy to answer questions about those things.

Scripture in 34 AD was likely just the Old Testament. Recall that Jesus, prior to His ascension, was able to teach about Himself solely from the OT Scriptures.

The NT doesn't do away with the OT, but sheds light on it. Jesus expected the Pharisees to know what the Scriptures were (He held them accountable to them) and how they pointed to Himself. He taught morality from the OT. Essentially what was being done in the NT was documenting historical fulfillment of OT prophecy and provided clarity of the OT teachings on salvation and sanctification (what true obedience looks like) through the lens of Jesus Christ.

What God preserved for His Church to know for faith and life, He preserved in the Scriptures, both the OT and eventually the NT.

quote:

---

Surely Jesus/the Trinity provided the Christians of AD 40, 50, 60 with sufficient means to know, practice, and carry on the evangelism of the Faith without a closed, complete, bound, and common Bible.

---

God certainly did. There was a unique period of time in the life of the NT Church where God had spoken through the Apostles to evangelize and build the Church until the Scriptures were closed. It was the same for the OT, such as with Moses prior to him writing the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch, I'm sure, left out a lot of teachings of Moses to the people that God did not preserve for future generations. Likewise, Jesus said many things that were not intended for the Church to have. Even Catholicism doesn't claim to have a record of everything Jesus said.

What these sorts of statements you are making are betraying is a fundamental misunderstanding of sola scriptura. That principle doesn't deny that God ever spoke in an authoritative way verbally, but that only God's Word as recorded in the Scriptures remains as the only authority for faith and life that all Christians must submit to.

quote:

---

In a time when universal hostility towards Christians was at its highest, doesn't it seem interesting that the Faith was sustained and grew without the Protestant's alleged "sole source" of Faith?

---

Not at all. The Apostles had a unique role in the building of the Church.

I don't deny that the Apostles taught things orally to the Church. I deny that what was necessary for faith and life of Christians was something other than (or in addition to) what was later recorded in the Scriptures.