Sola Scriptura

Today’s readings reminded me of one of the major problems that most non-Catholic Christians have with their idea that Scripture is to be our final authority in right-Christian living as well as finding out what is to be believed as doctrinally true.

Let’s set aside the fact that this rule can nowhere be found in our Scriptures (the Bible) and therefore defeats its own rule.  What I mean by that is if our final authority in determining what is doctrinally true is the Bible then this rule ought to be found in our Bible.  And it isn’t.  What I found in today’s readings that reminded me of this was the fact that not only is this rule of ‘Sola Scriptura’ not found in Scripture but Scripture itself teaches something that is opposite of this premise.

In the first reading from today we find Ezra the priest lift up the Scriptures of the time to the people and begins reading it to them.  As we can see, Scriptures are indeed very important since they are the written Word of God but Ezra not only “read plainly from the book of the law of God” he also interpreted it “so that all could understand what was read.” (Neh 8:8)

Even in the Old Testament times we see a need for some in authority to interpret the Scriptures so that we all may understand it properly.  Before the time of Jesus these interpreters ended up misapplying the Scriptures and erred on matters of faith and morals when interpreting the written Word of God.  Since Jesus came to ‘fix’ the problems of the times, does this mean that we shouldn’t have an authority to help us understand Scripture properly?  By no means!  Jesus came to ‘fix’ the problems, that is he came to fulfill, not to destroy the old system.

The reason that the Jews veered off course in understanding the written Word of God is because they hadn’t receive the promise of God that they would be guided into all truth as the leaders of the new Kingdom, that is His Church (John 16:13).  When Jesus instituted His Church here on earth, he fulfilled what was lacking previously.  He promised them that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven (Mat 18:18).  Since nothing untrue can be bound in heaven, we understand Jesus’ statement to mean that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into binding and loosing the faithful in an infallible manner on matters of faith and morals.

Jesus tells His followers that the last authority in guiding fellow Christians to the truth is the Church (Mat 18:15-17) and so when a major disagreement arose between Paul and some judaizers, those judaizers and Paul were sent to the Church to settle the matter which we now call the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:2).  Their decision in settling the matter was guided by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28) and was binding not only for the local congregation but to all the faithful (Acts 16:4).  We see examples of these councils throughout history all the way up to the Second Vatican Council of the 1960’s.  Since the Church is the final authority, Paul describes the Church, not the Scriptures, as being the upholder and standard of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).  Therefore the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) is not only nowhere found in our Bible, it is actually contrary to what the Bible teaches.

God Bless
Nathan

Scripture and Tradition

The online dictionary defines the word tradition to be “the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation.”

 

The Sacred Scriptures, the Old and New Testament, are a kind of tradition, a tradition handed down to us.  The apostles who were taught by Jesus and whose followers wrote down what they learned of the apostles stories and recollections that we now call the New Testament writings put these writings together with the Old Testament writings in one collection of books which we now call our Bible, where the word ‘Bible’ originates from the Greek ‘biblio’, which means ‘book’.

 

The authors of these NT books ‘handed down’ these letters, and the information contained in them, to others who would benefit from reading them and they, in turn, copied them and handed it to others.  This handing down is a form of tradition.  Since we believe that these writings came to us through the divine inspiration of the authors by God Himself through the guiding of the Holy Spirit, and protected from corruption in its copying, we call these writings ‘Sacred Scripture.’

 

The difference between ‘small-t’ tradition and ‘capital-T’ tradition is its origin.  If a tradition, that is, a belief, a custom or information, is known to have originated from Jesus Christ or the apostles while being inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach the truth then this tradition is properly called Sacred Tradition, or simply ‘capital-T’ Tradition and if it doesn’t originate from Jesus or the apostles in the same way, then it’s a small-t tradition.  For example, the concept of three persons in one God, the Trinity is a capital-t Tradition while the tradition of crossing ourselves with Holy Water as we enter a church as a small-t tradition.  The first is revealed by God and therefore the Truth, the other is simply a pious thing to do.

 

‘T’radition is the churches lived meaning of those texts.  If we don’t have access to the meaning of those texts is when we come up all sorts of errant or even abhorrent theologies.  Theologies which are inconsistent with what the Apostles received such as the Arian heresy where Jesus is believed to be human only and not divine.  Or even the belief in a symbolic only presence in the Eucharist as opposed to a True Presence.  In defending their belief in the human nature only of Christ and the symbolic presence only in the Eucharist, both groups defend their position using the text of the Scriptures and yet they were/are both wrong because they do not take into account the continuing understanding of those texts by those Christians through history.

 

 

WAIT A MINUTE….

 

Didn’t Jesus condemn all traditions of men?  He seems to be very clear when He pronounces in Matt 15:6 “So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.” or in Mark 7:13 “Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth.”

 

To reject all traditions because of these verses demonstrate a severe lack of understanding.  Jesus isn’t rejecting all traditions.  He’s rejecting any tradition that voids the Word of God; traditions of the kind are often called ‘traditions of men’ because they do not originate from God but from man.  With this in mind we can easily see that is what Jesus was condemning.  He was condemning any tradition that make “void the word of God”.

 

Therefore some traditions are OK but some are not.  So how can we figure out which ones to keep and which ones to reject, or more precisely, are there any traditions that we ought to reject as faithful followers of Jesus? Many will tell you that if a tradition does not line up with Scripture then it is man-made and to be avoided.  Sounds reasonable right?  Reasonable, maybe, but to do this means that we are rejecting beyond what Jesus was telling us to reject.  Jesus told us to reject the traditions of men since He was talking about those traditions that made void the word of God.  Just because a tradition is not found in Scripture doesn’t mean that it voids the Word of God.  It could simply mean that this tradition was never explicitly written down in Scripture.  Nowhere in Scripture will you find that all that’s needed for right-Christian living is to be found in Scripture.  Equally absent will you find everything that was taught by Jesus and the apostles.  The apostle John tells us that many things were taught by Jesus in His post-Resurrection appearances that were not written down (John 21:25).

 

As a matter of fact, we do find in Scripture the direct command to hold on to the traditions handed to us by the original followers of Christ in verse 15 of Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians.  Paul tells us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”  Not only does Paul direct us to “hold on to the traditions” taught by him and the other elders but he also defines what was written to be a form of tradition as well.  What was taught orally and what was taught through their writings were both defined as “traditions”.  Therefore what was taught by the apostles, either through word of mouth or through inspired writings was to be accepted and believed.

 

Now, I guess the question will have to come up.  How are we to know if what we call Sacred Tradition truly does originate with the apostles and is not a human invention inserted decades or even centuries later?  Many will tell you to go to the Scriptures.  But then we are assuming that the Scriptures are inspired in the first place.  Remember that the Scriptures are a form of tradition as well.  We are trying to determine if any specific tradition came to us from God directly or through the apostles.  We are obliged to accept and agree with those that do originate from God directly or through the apostles, but no such obligation exists for those traditions that do not.

 

For a concrete example, let’s look at the Scriptures a little more closely.  If the Scriptures are a form of capital-t Tradition then how did we as Christians come up with the collection of books in our Bible as thee collection of writings to accept as ‘God-breathed’, or inspired?  Answering this question will also help make clear why the doctrine of Sola-Scriptura cannot be true.

 

At the turn of the third century many considered early writings to be ‘God-breathed’ that today are not in our Bible while others considered certain writings that are in our Bible today were rejected at the time.  The confusion needed to be resolved and so a council was convened to determine which books were inspired and which were not.  This ‘canon’ was agreed upon by a local council at Hippo and Carthage (393 and 397 AD) and ratified by the Pope in c. 400 AD.  Once this was done there were no more disputes on the canon of the books inspired by God.  Therefore, all those who agree and accept the books of the NT of our Bible, accept the authority of the Church to infallibly determine this list of inspired writings, whether they know it or not.

 

And so we find that the inspired writings found their way in our Bible through the Church by ordained men, bishops of the Catholic Church.  To accept the authority of the Scriptures is to accept the authority of the Catholic Church.  This means that the doctrine invented by men in the early 1500’s that Scripture Alone is authoritative is self-defeating because to believe that the Scriptures are authoritative is to accept that the Church is also authoritative since they infallibly discerned which books were Scripture.  Both Scripture AND the Church are authoritative therefore Scripture is not alone, which is what Sola means in Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone.

 

God Bless

Nathan

Inspiration of Scripture

This question poses some serious problems for those who believe in Scripture alone as ones authority in right-Christian living.  Since Scripture nowhere indentifies the Book of James as divinely inspired for example means that one must go to an authority other than Scripture to determine if it is indeed inspired Scripture.  The same applies to any book that one might consider divinely inspired (literally translated as ‘God-breathed’).

 

If one looks at historical texts of the first century after Jesus’ death and resurrection, even those that are against the Christian church, we find unanimous agreement that the followers of Jesus believed that Jesus actually rose, body and soul, into heaven.  They believed it so deeply that they were willing to die instead of denying it.  Certainly if Christ had not risen his first disciples (the original 12 chosen by Christ Himself) would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

 

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

 

We have thus taken the material and purely historical and concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

 

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book. 

 

For a more detailed look at the inspiration of Sacred Scripture please go to:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

God Bless
Nathan

Sola Scriptura

“14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,  15 and that from infancy you have known [the] sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
(2 Tim 3:14-17)

 The most damaging criticism of sola scriptura is the reality that the Bible doesn’t teach it.  This leads to an absurdity.  Those who believe in sola scriptura claim that everything that is essential for a Christian to know is clearly taught in the Bible.  However, the Bible does not teach that everything that is essential for a Christian to know is clearly taught in the Bible.

The passage that is most often cited as a proof text by those who support sola scriptura is 2 Tim 3:15-17.  Let’s examine that passage beginning with its immediate context.  Paul is clearly instructing Timothy and the church in Ephesus to be a faithful witness during difficult times.  There is no indication anywhere in this Epistle that he is contrasting Sacred Scripture with other sources of revelation, or even discussing the subject.

In addition, the “Scriptures” with which Timothy has been acquainted “from childhood” (verse 15) refers to the Old Testament.  Are we to believe that St. Paul is teaching that the Old Testament constitutes the only source needed to know what Jesus taught?

Secondly, Paul has many important things to say about the scriptures.  They “are able to instruct you for salvation in Christ Jesus” (v.15).  However, he doesn’t claim that only the scriptures can instruct one for salvation in Christ Jesus.  “All scripture is inspired by God” (v.16), but Paul does not claim that only scriptures are inspired by God.  Paul also affirms that scripture is “useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (v.17), but he never asserts that only scripture is so useful.

Thirdly, This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, in 2 Timothy alone, Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (1:13-14, 2:2, and 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a very similar passage:

Ephesians 4:11-15 (RSV) - And His gifts were that some should be Apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are able to grow up in every way into Him who is the head, into Christ.

If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then by analogy, Ephesians 4:11-15 would likewise prove the sufficiency of prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4:11-15 the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, knowledge of Jesus, the fullness of Christ, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3:16-17, yet it doesn’t even mention Scripture!!

So if all Tradition and Church elements are excluded in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, then, by analogy, Scripture itself would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians 4:11-15! It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean they are nonexistent. Hence, the Church, Tradition, and Scripture together are equally necessary and important for teaching. And of course this is the Catholic view.

As you can see, advocates of the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura (the “Bible only” theory) have a problem on their hands here.

If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is true then we must be able to prove all doctrines from Scripture alone. If that is true, then we must be able to prove Sola Scriptura from Scripture alone. If we cannot do that then Sola Scriptura turns out to be self-refuting, an idea that cuts its own basis out from under itself, like the proposition “No generalizations are true.”

GodBless
Nathan

Copy/pasted from:
http://www.reesnet.com/theology/solascriptura/lvl09000.htm

And

http://www.totustuus.com/Sola%20Scriptura.pdf

Bible Divinely Inspired?

How does one know that the Bible is a collection of divinely inspired Books?

 

This question poses some serious problems for those who believe in Scripture alone as ones authority in right-Christian living.  Since Scripture nowhere indentifies the Book of James as divinely inspired for example means that one must go to an authority other than Scripture to determine if it is indeed inspired Scripture.  The same applies to any book that one might consider divinely inspired (literally translated as ‘God-breathed’).

If one looks at historical texts of the first century after Jesus’ death and resurrection, even those that are against the Christian church, we find unanimous agreement that the followers of Jesus believed that Jesus actually rose, body and soul, into heaven.  They believed it so deeply that they were willing to die instead of denying it.  Certainly if Christ had not risen his first disciples (the original 12 chosen by Christ Himself) would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book. 

So we know the Bible is a collection of divinely inspired books because of the established authority of the Church who discerned which books out of hundreds in contention were truly inspired and which weren’t.

Scripture Alone?

Today’s readings reminded me of one of the major problems that most non-Catholic Christians have with their idea that Scripture is to be our final authority in right-Christian living as well as finding out what is to be believed as doctrinally true.

Let’s set aside the fact that this rule can nowhere be found in our Scriptures (the Bible) and therefore defeats its own rule.  What I mean by that is if our final authority in determining what is doctrinally true is the Bible then this rule ought to be found in our Bible.  And it isn’t.  What I found in today’s readings that reminded me of this was the fact that not only is this rule of ‘Sola Scriptura’ not found in Scripture but Scripture itself teaches something that is opposite of this premise.

In the first reading from today we find Ezra the priest lift up the Scriptures of the time to the people and begins reading it to them.  As we can see, Scriptures are indeed very important since they are the written Word of God but Ezra not only “read plainly from the book of the law of God” he also interpreted it “so that all could understand what was read.” (Neh 8:8)

Even in the Old Testament times we see a need for some in authority to interpret the Scriptures so that we all may understand it properly.  Before the time of Jesus these interpreters ended up misapplying the Scriptures and erred on matters of faith and morals when interpreting the written Word of God.  Since Jesus came to ‘fix’ the problems of the times, does this mean that we shouldn’t have an authority to help us understand Scripture properly?  By no means!  Jesus came to ‘fix’ the problems, that is he came to fulfill, not to destroy the old system.

The reason that the Jews veered off course in understanding the written Word of God is because they hadn’t receive the promise of God that they would be guided into all truth as the leaders of the new Kingdom, that is His Church (John 16:13).  When Jesus instituted His Church here on earth, he fulfilled what was lacking previously.  He promised them that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven (Mat 18:18).  Since nothing untrue can be bound in heaven, we understand Jesus’ statement that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into binding and loosing the faithful in an infallible manner on matters of faith and morals.

Jesus tells His followers that the last authority in guiding fellow Christians to the truth is the Church (Mat 18:15-17) and so when a major disagreement arose between Paul and some judaizers, those judaizers and Paul were sent to the Church to settle the matter which we now call the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:2).  Their decision in settling the matter was guided by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28) and was binding not only for the local congregation but to all the faithful (Acts 16:4).  We see examples of these councils throughout history all the way up to the Second Vatican Council of the 1960’s.  Since the Church is the final authority, Paul describes the Church, not the Scriptures, as being the upholder and standard of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).  Therefore the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) is not only nowhere found in our Bible, it is actually contrary to what the Bible teaches.

Faith Alone?

Salvation Through Faith Alone, Works Alone, or Both?

A few Sundays ago I was listening to an evangelist speak on the television.  At one point he said that we are saved not just by faith but by “faith alone”.  And so I thought it would be appropriate to discuss the ‘doctrine’ to let you know what the Catholic Church teaches about this and why She does so.

The Scripture verse that most closely comes to stating that one is ‘saved’ by faith alone is found in Ephesians 2, verses 8 and 9.  It says: “⁸ For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— ⁹ not by works, so that no one can boast.”

We can plainly see that faith is definitely needed for salvation.  It makes sense then to understand Eph 2 to mean that if one receives faith, through the Grace of God, and immediately dies then that one will reach heaven.   Typically though we don’t die immediately following reception of faith.  And so the question comes up, what must we do, if we need to do anything, once we have faith?  It seems to me that we do indeed need to do something since the very next verse in Ephesians 2, verse 10 states that: “¹⁰ For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

It seems rather obvious to me that God’s Will is for us to do those good works that He’s prepared in advance for us.  And what happens if we don’t do the Will of God by avoiding those good works?  Jesus tells us only the ones who do the Will of the Father will enter heaven (Mat 7:21).

In fact there are many verses that clearly point out the necessity of good works as a condition for entrance into heaven.  When asked what good works one must do to do the works of God that He requires of us, Jesus answers: “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”  (John 6:29) To believe in Jesus is a work of God.  We are to believe Him when He says that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood if we are to have eternal life (John 6:54), we are to believe Him when He says we are to follow the commandments (Matt 19:17) and so on.

Another clear-cut example can be found in Paul’s letter to Timothy. He says:  “⁸ Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”  (1 Tim 5:8)  To have denied the faith means that one was already in possession of it therefore not to provide for their relatives, even after having faith in Him, are worse than an unbeliever.  Is an unbeliever ‘saved’?  No, faith is required but as you can see, the works of God prepared in advance for us to do are also necessary to be done for ones salvation.

So don’t let anyone tell you that you are saved by faith alone and that no works are necessary.  Yes, if one has faith and does not have the possibility of doing the works of God because of an early death (like the one of the good thief on the cross) is saved, but beyond the initial acceptance of faith we are to DO something because of our faith.

In fact, there is only one instance where ‘faith’ and ‘alone’ are found together and it is to DENY that we are saved/justified by faith alone.  James 2:24 says: “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.”  In fact, to make the point absolutely clear James goes on to say that “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead.”   Just like we need both a body and a spirit for physical life, so too do we need both faith AND works for eternal life.

 Prepared by a St.Denis parishioner

The Written Word of God

Have you ever wondered how the Bible we have today came to be?  In fact, in the mid-fourth century there was a wide range of disagreement over exactly what books belonged in the New Testament.  Certain books, such as the gospels, acts, and most of the epistles of Paul had long been agreed upon.  However a number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled in the late fourth century.

At around 380 AD Pope Damasus I commissioned St. Jerome to translate the Holy Scriptures from the earliest texts available into the language of the times (Latin) which became known as the Vulgate.  But Jerome found that there were many discrepancies in the list of books contained in what some considered was the inspired Word of God.   The Jewish community for example, had two distinct lists of inspired writings, one which contained only 39 books of the Old Testament and a second containing those same books plus seven more.  A different problem also presented itself when Jerome tried to determine which books in contention as inspired truly were inspired.  For example, in around 140 AD Marcion, a businessman in Rome, taught that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the Old Testament, and Abba, the kind father of the New Testament.  So Marcion’s collection of inspired writings eliminates the entire Old Testament as scripture and keeps only 10 letters of St Paul along with the gospel of Luke.

Jerome settled the issue by appealing to the authority of the Church.  Pope Damasus I gave Jerome the list of books to be treated as inspired and therefore to be translated in Latin.  A list which remained unchanged for 1200 years.  In fact it is a verifiable and documented fact that the books of the Bible were compiled by the Catholic Church through its bishops in councils.  Before this compilation in the late fourth century there was much confusion as to what could be read at Mass.  This was also the time when Jerome was trying to determine which books to translate in Latin.  But with confusion remaining many considered the letter of Barnabas, or the first letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians as inspired texts and likewise some did not even consider books as suitable that we now accept as inspired, books like the book of Revelation, first and second John and others.  So how did Christians settle the matter?  They convened in councils as they always have since the very beginning (have a look at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 for an early example of this).

The Council of Hippo, a regional council for some of the bishops in the Diocese of Africa, in 393 AD reaffirmed The Decree of Damasus promulgated a decade or so ago at the time of Jerome naming the books of the Bible that Catholics have today. The third Council of Carthage was far more authoritative than the Council of Hippo. The Diocese of Africa then had its see at Carthage, so Carthage had authority to speak for all of the northwest African bishops. The Council of Carthage in 397 AD also reaffirmed The Decree of Damasus. Carthage, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification. Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision and declared the canon settled.

It is ironic that non-Catholic Christians (most Protestants) reject the inclusion of seven Old Testament books included at councils such as Hippo and Carthage, because these are the very same early Church councils that Protestants appeal to for the canon of the New Testament.

Most, if not all Protestants believe that the sole rule of authority in right-Christian living is Scripture.  But since the Bible itself never tells us which books are to be included, it does tell us that we must accept another authority outside of the Bible to give us this infallible list of books that belong in our Bible.    This other authority is the Church.  The written Word of God contains 73 books, don’t miss out, read from the complete list.                                                                                

Prepared by a St. Denis parishioner