2 questions for those Christians who believe that the Bible alone is sufficient as the Christians sole rule of faith?

[joe370]

2 questions for Christians who believe that the Bible alone is sufficient as the Christians sole rule of faith:

**“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…” **

1. Where, in the Bible, does the Bible tell us that all Christian doctrines (which are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training) - are found, exclusively, in the Bible?
2. Where, in the Bible, does the Bible condemn apostolic oral tradition?

I understand that Jesus, as per scripture, condemned the human traditions of the Jewish leaders but those passages have nothing to do with Apostolic tradition that we must obey, as per scripture, that were handed down from generation to generation.

 

[followingtheway]

Ironically Sola Scriptura is unbiblical =O What a paradox!

 

[joshrp]

2 questions for Christians who believe that the Bible alone is sufficient as the Christians sole rule of faith:

**“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…” **

1. Where, in the Bible, does the Bible tell us that all Christian doctrines (which are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training) - are found, exclusively, in the Bible?
2. Where, in the Bible, does the Bible condemn apostolic oral tradition?

I understand that Jesus, as per scripture, condemned the human traditions of the Jewish leaders but those passages have nothing to do with Apostolic tradition that we must obey, as per scripture, that were handed down from generation to generation.

It should be called “Sola Me” because it really says “The Bible means whatever I-I-I-I-and Me Myself and I-I-I think it means, because you know that I am totally inspired by God all of the time, right?”

 

[JamestheOlder]

There is no place where oral tradition is condemned or even dismissed, Joe.

It’s very coincidental that I just finished a response in another “Bible question” thread, which may prove Catholic Tradition in ABSENCE of the Bible:

This is from 1John, Chapter 2:

24Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, then you will remain in the Son and in the Father.* 25And this is the promise that he made us: eternal life. 26I write you these things about those who would deceive you. 27As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him.
This is from the NAB, Revised Edition, available at “USCCB Bible” on the internet.

You can see, when viewing the entire quotation, that if you have heard the Truth (not seen it in a book), and retain that teaching that brought you to anointing (Baptism, Confirmation), and that anointing (sanctifying grace) remains in you, you do not need anyone to teach you; i.e., you already have sanctifying grace, and that is sufficient for salvation. So, he says, remain in grace, and, just as it taught you by what you heard to bring you to this anointing, it will cause you to remain in Him (Jesus).

I really hate to break it to you this way, but belief in the Bible, even dedicated belief in its words as writen in various forms, does NOT bring salvation. Belief in Jesus the Christ, as G-d and man, brings Baptism, and with it, sanctifying grace…regardless of what version of the Bible you read, regardless of how many books your Bible contains, regardless of a Pope’s decree, regardless of learned rabbis selection of Hebrew Scriptures, only, for their Testament.

So, for all practical purposes towards obtaining salvation, the Bible is irrelevant. If you say “no”, you deny entry to Heaven for all those who died for and in the Faith (some in a most violent manner), including Peter and Paul, and yes, even John, whom you quote. Remember, they died before the “Bible” was constructed and canonized.

---

Sorry for the length, but until the poster in the other thread forced me to study this, I never actually faced what now I believe is the Truth: The Catholic Church could/would have continued to exist, till today, till the end of the world, without the Bible. We might, today, have four books (maybe two, maybe three) and a number of letters, that we taught from at every Mass. We might have an impoverished Jewish Testament, or maybe even a modern version of the Septuagint, so we could find references for Jesus’ teaching and parables. But we do not need the “BIBLE” as such. All we need are belief in Christ, and the steps that entails (Eucharist, with the other Sacraments). That’s what John says.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jamestheolder…

So, for all practical purposes towards obtaining salvation, the Bible is irrelevant. If you say “no”, you deny entry to Heaven for all those who died for and in the Faith (some in a most violent manner), including Peter and Paul, and yes, even John, whom you quote. Remember, they died before the “Bible” was constructed and canonized.

That’s a really good point.

 

[joe370]

It should be called “Sola Me” because it really says “The Bible means whatever I-I-I-I-and Me Myself and I-I-I think it means, because you know that I am totally inspired by God all of the time, right?”

Good point. However, there are sola scriptura advocates, like JonNC, who don’t embrace that “sola me” mentality.

It occurred to me, as a former non-Catholic, if I wanted to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, I would have to prove it from scripture alone, but I couldn’t. No where does scripture even suggest that apostolic oral tradition ended with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

I am just curious how other sola scriptura advocates argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer,considering the fact that it can’t be proven from scripture? At least I couldn’t prove it…

 

[CompSciGuy]

I think a better question is that, if the Bible is meant to be the sole rule of faith, why is it written the way it is? It is mostly letters. There are certain aspects of the Christian faith that simply have to come from tradition, for example the sacraments. The Bible talks about them, but doesn’t sit you down and systematically explain what they are, what they do, how specifically to worthily receive them, etc. In fact Paul talks about the Eucharist as if we are supposed to already know what it is, and doesn’t explain it further because at the time it was up to the Church to tell you these things. The doctrine of the Trinity as we understand it is also not explained thoroughly in scripture, there are just passing references. Protestants have used the fact that the Bible doesn’t go into great detail on these things to say that they are “non-essentials” which I have a problem with because I believe Jesus established a faith and not a template for a faith.

 

[joe370]

I think a better question is that, if the Bible is meant to be the sole rule of faith, why is it written the way it is? It is mostly letters. There are certain aspects of the Christian faith that simply have to come from tradition, for example the sacraments. The Bible talks about them, but doesn’t sit you down and systematically explain what they are, what they do, how specifically to worthily receive them, etc. In fact Paul talks about the Eucharist as if we are supposed to already know what it is, and doesn’t explain it further because at the time it was up to the Church to tell you these things. The doctrine of the Trinity as we understand it is also not explained thoroughly in scripture, there are just passing references. Protestants have used the fact that the Bible doesn’t go into great detail on these things to say that they are “non-essentials” which I have a problem with because I believe Jesus established a faith and not a template for a faith.

In order for a sola scriptura proponent to embrace the concept of “non-essentials”, it must be found somewhere in scripture but it’s not. One cannot reject, for example, the assumption of Mary, claiming that that teaching is not found in scripture, and then turn around and accept the teaching of non-essentials.

 

[JonNC]

It should be called “Sola Me” because it really says “The Bible means whatever I-I-I-I-and Me Myself and I-I-I think it means, because you know that I am totally inspired by God all of the time, right?”

Hi Josh,
As Joe mentioned, that’s not the view of Lutherans. Lutherans have a set of doctrine, compiled in the Book of Concord, starting with the 3 ancient creeds. Were I-I-I-I to determine that what I-I-I-I, Me Myself thinks is better than what the confessions say, and further that it disagrees with said confessions, then I am simply no longer a Lutheran.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

In order for a sola scriptura proponent to embrace the concept of “non-essentials”, it must be found somewhere in scripture but it’s not. One cannot reject, for example, the assumption of Mary, claiming that that teaching is not found in scripture, and then turn around and accept the teaching of non-essentials.

This, I would say, is exactly correct. If I accept the notion of non-essentials, then I must allow others to do the same. Now, for Lutherans, we would consider things such as the Auumption to be non-essential, or in our terms, idiaphora, thing indifferent. If I choose to believe in the Assumption, assuming it does no harm to the Gospel, I can. Or I can not choose to believe it. If I choose not to, but then condemn you for doing so, then I’ve made it an essential (not to believe it).

In terms of doctrine, however, there are no non-essentials. I do not consider regenerative Baptism, the Real Presence, etc. to be non-essentials.

Jon

 

[Miriam1947]

There is no place where oral tradition is condemned or even dismissed, Joe.

It’s very coincidental that I just finished a response in another “Bible question” thread, which may prove Catholic Tradition in ABSENCE of the Bible:

This is from 1John, Chapter 2:

24Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, then you will remain in the Son and in the Father.* 25And this is the promise that he made us: eternal life. 26I write you these things about those who would deceive you. 27As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him.
This is from the NAB, Revised Edition, available at “USCCB Bible” on the internet.

You can see, when viewing the entire quotation, that if you have heard the Truth (not seen it in a book), and retain that teaching that brought you to anointing (Baptism, Confirmation), and that anointing (sanctifying grace) remains in you, you do not need anyone to teach you; i.e., you already have sanctifying grace, and that is sufficient for salvation. So, he says, remain in grace, and, just as it taught you by what you heard to bring you to this anointing, it will cause you to remain in Him (Jesus).

I really hate to break it to you this way, but belief in the Bible, even dedicated belief in its words as writen in various forms, does NOT bring salvation. Belief in Jesus the Christ, as G-d and man, brings Baptism, and with it, sanctifying grace…regardless of what version of the Bible you read, regardless of how many books your Bible contains, regardless of a Pope’s decree, regardless of learned rabbis selection of Hebrew Scriptures, only, for their Testament.

So, for all practical purposes towards obtaining salvation, the Bible is irrelevant. If you say “no”, you deny entry to Heaven for all those who died for and in the Faith (some in a most violent manner), including Peter and Paul, and yes, even John, whom you quote. Remember, they died before the “Bible” was constructed and canonized.

---

Sorry for the length, but until the poster in the other thread forced me to study this, I never actually faced what now I believe is the Truth: The Catholic Church could/would have continued to exist, till today, till the end of the world, without the Bible. We might, today, have four books (maybe two, maybe three) and a number of letters, that we taught from at every Mass. We might have an impoverished Jewish Testament, or maybe even a modern version of the Septuagint, so we could find references for Jesus’ teaching and parables. But we do not need the “BIBLE” as such. All we need are belief in Christ, and the steps that entails (Eucharist, with the other Sacraments). That’s what John says.

This is a very interesting conversation. I really like what you say here. :clapping: