This is the second and last part of my conversation with a Calvinist, a young anti-Catholic fellow. Let us read below our arguments as we talked about on a topic ranging from the “Church” to “Sola Scriptura”. His words are in red while mine are in green.
HIS ARGUMENT
[David Barker: the books being canonized: The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficulty in determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.
Compared to the New Testament, there was much less controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers and accepted their writings as inspired of God. While there was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon, by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha, with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.
For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.
The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.
The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God’s imparting to His followers what He had already decided. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.]
Hahaha… you are funny David. You give us a litany of answers which I thought are all coming from you. By not mentioning the source or by not giving credit due to the author [2], you are plagiarizing his work… LOL. You are a hoax, David. You can’t even stand up to your contentions and you expect someone like me to believe you. Go on, fool yourself not me. It is clear that you are a waste of my time. At any rate, I would still answer the presentation which you have plagiarized.
THE REBUTTAL
[the books being canonized: The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficulty in determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible]
I answer: “Canon” is another word that is not found in scriptures. Isn’t it ironic for someone like you, who challenge that the word “Catholic” is unscriptural, to use this word? That’s hypocrisy again found through your lying teeth. Your words therefore cannot be trusted as per your standard hahaha. “Sola Scriptura” or “Bible alone” is already refuted by the fact that it doesn’t give us the list of books that belong in the Bible.
[Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A 
book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.]
I answer: It was the Church Magisterium who decided which books comprise the Bible not your newly invented Church. The Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth (1Tim 3:15) and with the Guidance of the Holy Spirit, determined the Books to be included in the Bible.
[Compared to the New Testament, there was much less controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers and accepted their writings as inspired of God. While there was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon, by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha, with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.]
I answer: The early Christians are using the Greek translation of the Old Testament called Septuagint. The Books which are considered by Protestants like you as Apocrypha are present in this translation.
“The Early Christian Church used the Greek texts since Greek was a lingua franca of the Roman Empire at the time, and the language of the Greco-Roman Church (Aramaic was the language of Syriac Christianity, which used the Targums).” [1]
On the same topic, Wikipedia also added “The Septuagint seems to have been a major source for the Apostles, but it is not the only one. St. Jerome offered, for example, Matt 2:15 and 2:23, John 19:37, John 7:38, 1 Cor. 2:9.[34] as examples not found in the Septuagint, but in Hebrew texts. (Matt 2:23 is not present in current Masoretic tradition either, though according to St. Jerome it was in Isaiah 11:1.) The New Testament writers, when citing the Jewish scriptures, or when quoting Jesus doing so, freely used the Greek translation, implying that Jesus, his Apostles and their followers considered it reliable”
You said, “The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.” Do you believe the Hebrew Scholars? These same people don’t believe in the divinity of Christ. They don’t believe that Jesus is the Christ so why should I trust them in determining the Scriptures that belong to the Bible? The Early Christians used the Greek Translation of OT (Septuagint), It’s only fair that the true Church is still using it until now. You are a traitor to the early Christians in believing those people who don’t believe that Jesus is the Christ.
[For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27).]
I answer: It is evident that they recognized books not by the use of “sola scriptura” or “Bible Alone”. It therefore proves our contention that “sola scriptura” is self refuting.
While it’s true that St. Paul exhorted the Christians to read his epistles in their churches. It is still not a proof that they use “sola scriptura” in determining the canonicity of the Book.
[Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.]
I answer: Here we go! David forgot that all the people mentioned above are Catholics if not all Bishops. Did you forget that in the previous discussion, you are downplaying Ignatius of Antioch for saying that the Church is Catholic? Remember your words, “you’re quote about IGNATIUS is not found in the Bible, nor is his name mentioned, and is therefore to be discredited, since it goes against scripture” (emphasis mine)?
You are truly a hypocrite David. LOL! Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp and Hippolytus are all Catholics and not members of your newly invented church. One of them, in fact, is a Pope. You must study the life of these people to know more about them. Start with at least Wikipedia LOL!
[The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John.]
I answer: David is getting his sources outside of the Bible. You shouldn’t have done that, David. Don’t you think it should be the Bible alone?
[In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.]
I answer: Bear in mind David that these councils are assemblies of Catholic Bishops and theologians. They are not from the newly invented church like yours. You should be ashamed of yourself talking about such things that are Catholics which you relentlessly abhor.
[The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?]
I answer: One thing is apparent in the above testimony: Since the mentioned councils were sanctioned by the Catholic Church, you can never deny that it had a hand in the Canon of Scriptures. Your newly invented church has no extra hand in helping (LOL words are familiar, right?).
[Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God’s imparting to His followers what He had already decided. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.]
Wrong! The Council was called to settle some disputes like the council of Jerusalem settled the dispute in the past (Acts 15). The Church must have unity in beliefs and so with their Bibles. They therefore decided and upheld this matter during these councils. The church is the body of Christ (Col. 1:18), therefore in her decision it is also Christ’s.
[Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. 1 Corinthians 4:6]
David, St. Paul never intends to teach “Bible alone” because when he wrote it (e.g. 1cor 4:6) the Bible was not compiled yet hahaha. But listen to the teaching of St. Paul about tradition, “Because of that, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold to the TRADITION that we taught you by word or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15). So, we are taught either by word (ORAL teaching handed down to us) or by letter (Bible). Both of them therefore are the means in teaching the truth about Christianity. It is not by “word alone” but it is also not by “letter alone” (Bible Alone). It should be BOTH.
David, you failed! Your “bark” is not loud enough!
Note:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
[2] http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html