Bible being the Sole Authority??

[solarguy17]

This is an excellent question, solarguy17 and I think gets at the heart of the thread topic.

I think first it is important to look at what this verse actually is saying. I find that it is often misunderstood by those reading it. You are right, it says that scripture is inspired. Coming from God as it does it is “profitable”, and in some translations “useful”. This verse does NOT say we don’t need anything else, or that Scripture is the be all and end all of God’s revelation to man.

Next we look at what type of activities in which Scripture is profitable (useful). These activities include teaching, reproof, correction and training in rightousness. These are all parts of the Christian process of sanctification. What is the goal of all this teaching, reproving, correcting and training? That the man of God may be equipped. Scripture is useful in equipping the tasks of forming disciples.

Nowhere does it say that Scripture alone accomplishes these tasks. In fact, we find the contrary. To whom did God give these tasks?

Eph 4:10-14
10 He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.) 11 The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.

Jesus gave the gift of teaching and pastoring to PEOPLE, and these PEOPLE are charged with the responsibilty to equip the saints for the work of the ministry. These PEOPLE find scripture useful/profitable in the tasks of equiping the saints.

So I think that St. Paul here answers your question clearly. You need the people appointed and gifted by Jesus to equip you for the work of the ministry. You need to benefit from their use of the Scripture as they reprove, correct and teach you according to the gifts that God has established. And in the next verses he concludes:

Eph 4:14-16
We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. 15 But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the **whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love. **

You need it because Jesus established His Church, and He is buildign that Church in love. He provided the gifted people to profitably use the scriptures for the purpose of bringing us all to maturity.

You need those people because that is the way Jesus set it up. It is His church, so He gets to decide what you need, and how you are going to get your need met.

If the man is equipped for every good work by what is written in the scriptures, what does that imply non-scriptural teaching does?
Furthermore, working from the assumption God is perfect and everything he creates is perfect (Perfect in His eyes) then to add to or subtract from the Bible (which God created), adds to or takes from God’s perfection. Or assumes that the Bible isn’t perfect and needs correction. If the Bible isn’t perfect then we have to infer that God isn’t perfect and I don’t know many people that want to worship or believe in an imperfect God.

Also, you mention Paul saying that we are directed to teach and pastor to the people, I actually am not sure what you are implying because nothing he says in those passages implies that people can create their own law and teach it as God given.
So i’m not sure what your thought there is, but again it doesn’t contridict the idea that the Bible is complete and perfect.

Also, same verse from the NKJ.
6 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[CopticChristian]

If the man is equipped for every good work by what is written in the scriptures, what does that imply non-scriptural teaching does?
Or assumes that the Bible isn’t perfect and needs correction. If the Bible isn’t perfect then we have to infer that God isn’t perfect and I don’t know many people that want to worship or believe in an imperfect God.

Also, you mention Paul saying that we are directed to teach and pastor to the people, I actually am not sure what you are implying because nothing he says in those passages implies that people can create their own law and teach it as God given.
So i’m not sure what your thought there is, but again it doesn’t contridict the idea that the Bible is complete and perfect.

Also, same verse from the NKJ.
6 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Solar,

Furthermore, working from the assumption God is perfect and everything he creates is perfect (Perfect in His eyes) then to add to or subtract from the Bible (which God created), adds to or takes from God’s perfection.

and to think He said He would found a Church, Bride of Christ, and He created it…in fact it was the mystery hidden for all ages…says so in that book…perfect in His eyes and no man has the right to try and change it…

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Solarguy,

Does the NT count as adding to “God’s perfection” ? If not, why not?

Amen to 2 Tim. 3:16. Scripture is profitable.

God bless

 

[joe370]

I don’t think that’s the claim, Joe. I am part of the universal Church on Earth, the Church Militant, the Church Catholic, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Yet the CC claims I am of an “ecclesial community”.
If the papacy’s claim of primacy were in keeping to that given it in the early Church, I would be thrilled to submit to it.

Jon

Hey Jon. I know that you belong to the universal, militant church on earth, (as all do, regardless of denomination) i.e. the fractured, mystical Body of Christ consisting of all of the isolated, autonomous churches. However, like me long ago, you do not yet, belong to the Catholic Church to which I now belong. If that is true then logically, the Catholic Church, in terms of supremacy and universal jurisdiction, has absolutely no jurisdiction over you or anyone within the fractured, mystical Body of Christ, not in full communion with the Catholic Church - right?

Surely men like Irenaeus knew better than us:

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” Against Heresies 3:3:2 - AD 189.

 

[joe370]

aidanbradypop;10401125]Because if you give the Bible the sole authority like most Protestants, it has to come from the bible in order to be fact and of God. That is why you do not see a Baptist preacher giving Mass.

That’s true. :yup: People decide how to interpret the Bible which is why we see so many autonomous churches started by mere men, as opposed to the God. That is precisely the problem with making the Bible the final authority, and Martin Luther was one of the first men to realize that fact! Sadly, people can start their own churches and make the Bible mean whatever they want, in terms of meeting their agenda, be it good or bad.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That’s true. :yup: People decide how to interpret the Bible which is why we see so many autonomous churches started by mere men, as opposed to the God. That is precisely the problem with making the Bible the final authority, and Martin Luther was one of the first men to realize that fact! Sadly, people can start their own churches and make the Bible mean whatever they want, in terms of meeting their agenda, be it good or bad.

Correct!

What most seem to not notice is how holding the Bible as the highest authority is the highest demonstration of “free will”. It is a choice and not a mandate. A human choice in that matter as well. We see our Lord commanding several things in the New Testament, in like manner we see “free will” manifested in what those holding to Bible Alone decide inconsistently which of the Lord’s commands are necessary.

 

[Nicea325]

If the man is equipped for every good work by what is written in the scriptures, what does that imply non-scriptural teaching does?
Furthermore, working from the assumption God is perfect and everything he creates is perfect (Perfect in His eyes) then to add to or subtract from the Bible (which God created), adds to or takes from God’s perfection. Or assumes that the Bible isn’t perfect and needs correction. If the Bible isn’t perfect then we have to infer that God isn’t perfect and I don’t know many people that want to worship or believe in an imperfect God.

Also, you mention Paul saying that we are directed to teach and pastor to the people, I actually am not sure what you are implying because nothing he says in those passages implies that people can create their own law and teach it as God given.
So i’m not sure what your thought there is, but again it doesn’t contridict the idea that the Bible is complete and perfect.

Also, same verse from the NKJ.
6 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Okay,but unfortunately St.Paul was not writing in defense of the Bible-Alone or scripture having the final authority. Those who use 2 Tim 3:16 as “proof” the Bible is the final authority are adding to the text;hence the text never claims such a position.

 

[joe370]

Correct!

What most seem to not notice is how holding the Bible as the highest authority is the highest demonstration of “free will”. It is a choice and not a mandate. A human choice in that matter as well. We see our Lord commanding several things in the New Testament, in like manner we see “free will” manifested in what those holding to Bible Alone decide inconsistently which of the Lord’s commands are necessary.

:thumbsup:In other words, a democracy. Thank God Jesus’ Catholic Church does not operate according to that model. Paul understood this perfectly; after all, Jesus’ (“I will build my church…”) church is the conduit through which God preserves and transmits truth, as per John 14:16, 16:13 etc.:

“Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.”

 

[joe370]

solarguy17;10402016]If the man is equipped for every good work by what is written in the scriptures, what does that imply non-scriptural teaching does?

Perhaps it is not a good idea to cheery-pick verses! For example:

“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”

Furthermore, working from the assumption God is perfect and everything he creates is perfect (Perfect in His eyes) then to add to or subtract from the Bible (which God created), adds to or takes from God’s perfection.

Catholics agree with you. No one is adding to sacred scripture. Martin Luther attempted to subtract 4 books from it but his successors thought that to be a bad idea.

Or assumes that the Bible isn’t perfect and needs correction. If the Bible isn’t perfect then we have to infer that God isn’t perfect and I don’t know many people that want to worship or believe in an imperfect God.

Also, you mention Paul saying that we are directed to teach and pastor to the people, I actually am not sure what you are implying because nothing he says in those passages implies that people can create their own law and teach it as God given.
So i’m not sure what your thought there is, but again it doesn’t contridict the idea that the Bible is complete and perfect.

People should not create their own law and teach it as if it was given to the world by God e.g. sola scriptura.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete

, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I agree that all scripture is given by God…Show me the verse that says: Only scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work?

Perhaps the following is all I need to make me complete, lacking nothing:

“Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.” James 1

 

[benjohnson]

Ben,

Explain to me how in your mind, as you express, you can say…

We received the Bible from God through his Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church…

Explain to me the mechanics of that reception…who gave it to you so that you could receive it?

I think this is going to perhaps drive you nuts, but we claim to be a valid continuation of the western church - so we would have the same answer as you. In that we have a shared history for 1500 years, and we have a slightly less shared history for the following 500 years.

As Luther said:

"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics)–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.” –Commentary on St. John, ch. 16

 

[pablope]

Correct, listen to the Apostles, the Apostles have all passed away leaving the Bible as their message to us.

And yes, I do because of what it says in this verse.

Where did any of the Apostles said they left the Bible to us? Christ did not order them to write anything, as I recall.

So can you provide a verse in the Bible where it says it was the Apostles who ordered any of the writing of any of the NT?

But the Apostles also left instructions…to have successors…as what Peter does in Acts, to replace Judas.

So, how do you know the one you are listening too has Apostolic lineage?

In Acts 13, Paul is ordained prior to going on his first missoinary journey…

1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

And before his ordination…in Gal:

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

So how does the person whom you listen to fulfill the example of St. Paul of having apostolic lineage?

 

[CopticChristian]

I think this is going to perhaps drive you nuts, but we claim to be a valid continuation of the western church - so we would have the same answer as you. In that we have a shared history for 1500 years, and we have a slightly less shared history for the following 500 years.

As Luther said:

"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics)–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.” –Commentary on St. John, ch. 16

Ben,

It does not drive me nuts. It should drive you nuts. When Luther says it was received…it implies it was given…if it was given, then by whom…and was it Luther that received it or someone else? I don’t have to make sense out of this you do.

 

[pablope]

I think this is going to perhaps drive you nuts, but we claim to be a valid continuation of the western church - so we would have the same answer as you. In that we have a shared history for 1500 years, and we have a slightly less shared history for the following 500 years.

As Luther said:

"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics)–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.” –Commentary on St. John, ch. 16

Ben…the western Church…traditionally has been under the Bishop of Rome…all throughout history…so I am puzzled…if you are a valid continuation of the western church…why are you not under or recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome?

Why do you have your own non sacramental bishops/priests, reject apostolic succession…just for starters?

It seems you would like to say you are a continuation of the western church…but pick and choose what you want to agree with regards the Western Church?

 

[benjohnson]

Ben,

It does not drive me nuts. It should drive you nuts. When Luther says it was received…it implies it was given…if it was given, then by whom…and was it Luther that received it or someone else? I don’t have to make sense out of this you do.

I don’t think Luther would say it was received by him at all but received by the church. He noted that the German churches received their physical copies over the years from the catholic church.

On a theological level, I think we would say it’s has been fundamentally received by the Holy Sprit.

 

[benjohnson]

Ben…the western Church…traditionally has been under the Bishop of Rome…all throughout history…so I am puzzled…if you are a valid continuation of the western church…why are you not under or recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome?

Why do you have your own non sacramental bishops/priests, reject apostolic succession…just for starters?

It seems you would like to say you are a continuation of the western church…but pick and choose what you want to agree with regards the Western Church?

This is a very fundamental question, and a question that every Lutheran should think long and hard about, and continue to ask themselves. If we can’t rightfully claim to be a continuation of the Western Church - then we need to immediately stop and look around us.

For myself, given the recent examples of obviously holy Popes, this question is more and more difficult to answer I think.

But let’s go back 500 years:

We rejected the office of the Pope because at the time, we seemed to think that the office was promulgating doctrine (or customs) contrary to God’s Holy Word. Perhaps this was a misunderstanding, and of course there were politics involved, so this isn’t an easy subject. And let me bet sure to say that we don’t claim to have acted perfectly.

In my poor reading of history, had Lutherans and Catholics remained substantially the same for the last 400 year after the council of Trent, I think we would find ourselves closer together now.

In the interim, some Lutherans have lost their confessions, and poor early-American Lutherans have lost their bishops and cathedrals, and the Catholic Church has promulgated doctrine that perhaps adds more barriers - not just to us, but to the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t think Luther would say it was received by him at all but received by the church. He noted that the German churches received their physical copies over the years from the catholic church.

On a theological level, I think we would say it’s has been fundamentally received by the Holy Sprit.

Ben,

You posted this…I did not…

As Luther said:

"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics)–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.” –Commentary on St. John, ch. 16

Luther was a person. He could speak. He could write. He wrote…you posted he said…actually he wrote…Ok…

Catholics possess the Word of God…no argument there

we received from them…now here is where things go south

otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it. Ok…

So to know something, to have something and to admit that someone else has it I am Ok with. To have received it…it is a book, not something intangible, something tangible…to say someone else possesses something and then say you received it…

How, by whom, if it was received then that implies someone gave it and we are back to it was stolen…

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t think Luther would say it was received by him at all but received by the church. He noted that the German churches received their physical copies over the years from the catholic church.

On a theological level, I think we would say it’s has been fundamentally received by the Holy Sprit.

Ben,

How is it they received the physical copies. Was it a Christmas present, was it UPS, was it hand delivered…and if so by whom…show me where the Catholic Church that you say, Luther acknowledges had the Word of God…gave it to the Lutherans…

Received by the Holy Spirit…can’t buy that…won’t buy that…I can say the Holy Spirit was shocked when it was stolen…now what?

 

[joe370]

benjohnson;10402407]I think this is going to perhaps drive you nuts, but we claim to be a valid continuation of the western church - so we would have the same answer as you.

That continuation, going all the way back to Pentecost, is only possible if Lutheranism traces its origin back to the apostolic age through the Catholic Church - correct? Surely all churches, regardless of denomination, can make that same claim.

In that we have a shared history for 1500 years, and we have a slightly less shared history for the following 500 years.

The Lutheran Church did not exist for the first 1500 years of Christianity. We can all read about the history of the CC but we (and I mean post-reformation Catholics and Lutherans) cannot claim to have shared in it, right, other than reading about the rich history? The history of Lutheranism has it roots established, at best, in the 16th century. After all, Martin Luther was a Catholic priest.

As Luther said:

"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics)–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.” –Commentary on St. John, ch. 16

When Martin Luther left the CC he did not claim to be a valid continuation of the CC. He claimed to be a part of a new paradigm that fostered truth, something, in his mind, was lacking in the Catholic Church, ergo, the reason he left the Catholic Church. Sure, he admitted that many things were attributable to the Papists (Catholics) but he also disavowed CC teachings in favor of rather novel ones.

To be a valid continuation of an organization e.g. Jesus’ church, certainly does not mean that one can validly trace its origin all the way back to the beginning of that organization. For example, as a younger man, I joined the Home Depot organization, and remained with them for 3 years, but eventually left that organization and joined the Lowes Home Improvement organization. At no time would I continue to claim that I belonged to the Home Depot organization that was founded in 1978 by Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank. I would claim that I belonged to the Lowes organization, founded in 1946 by Lucius S. Lowe, Jim Lowe. How is this different from the Catholic organization and the Lutheran organization, each having a different founder, established at different times in history?

 

[CopticChristian]

That continuation, going all the way back to Pentecost, is only possible if Lutheranism traces its origin back to the apostolic age through the Catholic Church - correct? Surely all churches, regardless of denomination, can make that same claim.

The Lutheran Church did not exist for the first 1500 years of Christianity. We can all read about the history of the CC but we (and I mean post-reformation Catholics and Lutherans) cannot claim to have shared in it, right, other than reading about the rich history? The history of Lutheranism has it roots established, at best, in the 16th century. After all, Martin Luther was a Catholic priest.

When Martin Luther left the CC he did not claim to be a valid continuation of the CC. He claimed to be a part of a new paradigm that fostered truth, something, in his mind, was lacking in the Catholic Church, ergo, the reason he left the Catholic Church. Sure, he admitted that many things were attributable to the Papists (Catholics) but he also disavowed CC teachings in favor of rather novel ones.

To be a valid continuation of an organization e.g. Jesus’ church, certainly does not mean that one can validly trace its origin all the way back to the beginning of that organization. For example, as a younger man, I joined the Home Depot organization, and remained with them for 3 years, but eventually left that organization and joined the Lowes Home Improvement organization. At no time would I continue to claim that I belonged to the Home Depot organization that was founded in 1978 by Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank. I would claim that I belonged to the Lowes organization, founded in 1946 by Lucius S. Lowe, Jim Lowe. How is this different in terms of the Catholic organization and the Lutheran organization, each having a different founder, at different times?

Joe,

Does that mean that Luther was not on a mission from God as in this thread?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=757561

 

[JonNC]

=CopticChristian;10402768]Ben,

How is it they received the physical copies. Was it a Christmas present, was it UPS, was it hand delivered…and if so by whom…show me where the Catholic Church that you say, Luther acknowledges had the Word of God…gave it to the Lutherans…

Show me, CC, where we are not permitted to have it. Where the Holy Spirit limits who may and may not have the word of God. Is it a book for Christians? The Catholic Catechism says we are Christians. If the Catholic Catechism says that, ""Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”
If the Catholic Church acknowledges that the written Word of God is with us, what Catholic then can claim it should not be so?

Received by the Holy Spirit…can’t buy that…won’t buy that…I can say the Holy Spirit was shocked when it was stolen…now what?

See above.

Jon