Bible-only Christians: Why do you use the Bible?

[christcnection1]

I was not really clear I guess in my use of Irenaeus. Of course I do not agree with all his statements and, yes, he does contadict himself in places as do many of the church fathers. For example you quoted him on the Eucharist. But he also speaks in language like Lutheran consubstantiation.

When I quote from the church fathers I do so for the purpose of showing that Protestant positions were not raised for the first time during the Reformation. So what I am saying is that the idea of enscripuralization had been expressed.

Actually this quote from Irenaeus reminds me of John 6. I actually see your point that it is similar to Lutheran teaching, but this passage, in no way, conflicts with Catholic teaching.

If we were to reject all of Irenaeus’s writing and merely isolate this one, I think one could accept that both Catholic and Lutheran teachings fit into this passage. However, the problem is that it would be foolish to ignore all his other writings, as well as the writings of other church fathers.

“For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”

---

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."

(John 6: 54-58)

 

[SyCarl]

Actually this quote from Irenaeus reminds me of John 6. I actually see your point that it is similar to Lutheran teaching, but this passage, in no way, conflicts with Catholic teaching.

If we were to reject all of Irenaeus’s writing and merely isolate this one, I think one could accept that both Catholic and Lutheran teachings fit into this passage. However, the problem is that it would be foolish to ignore all his other writings, as well as the writings of other church fathers.

“For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”

---

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."

(John 6: 54-58)

This may be getting off topic but a problem is that if a church father makes two statements on the same thing, how do you know what their actual thoughts were.

I do not claim to be an expert on the church fathers as I am just slowly working through them but they have said things that would be contrary to Catholic teaching. For example on John 6:

Chapter 16.CRule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.
24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.-Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24)

1. Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become partakers of the divine nature 2 Peter 1:4 .
2. Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said, Except ye eat My flesh and drink My blood, you have no life in you John 6:53 . They not having heard His saying in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that He was inviting them to eat flesh. .-Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 22, Paragraphs3-4)

 

[clgagnon]

To those who argue that The Bible does not have a contents page I would reply that you are looking in the wrong place.

If you are looking in the front of the book forget it. The contents can be determined by the last paragraph of the last book - Revelation. Spells it out pretty clear to me.

I pray the guy that yanked the seven books out doesn’t get what the passage dictates as his fate

Peace in Our Risen Lord
ChrisG

 

[MASTERK_00]

the church exit for over 1500 years without a bible, they went by the teachings of the early fathers of the church, saints, and during the begining of the church there were many false gospels and when the people didnt like the truth they began protesting against the church and when the bible came out they made up there own opinions about the teachings the gospel of man, and there was a saint preaching the gospel of man is worester than the gospel of the devil,. see how many churches has formed since the bible began, you are not saved by the bible, and god did not tell us to make many bibles and pass them on if it were so he would have gave one to us himself like the ten commandents, not one bible is correct there are thousands of different bibles, most of the teachings of the church were passed on by the early fathers of the church and arent written in the bibles.

hope you get it

 

[christcnection1]

This may be getting off topic but a problem is that if a church father makes two statements on the same thing, how do you know what their actual thoughts were.

Why are you assuming there is a contradiction? I could choose to see one, but that’s not necessarily a contradiction by a long shot.

Let’s play this game…

If two Protestant ministers (even ones that are God-fearing, love the Lord, are living holy lives, and are sincerly seeking the truth) radically disagree on how several passages of the Bible should be interpreted, how do you know which interpretations are right?

Hmm… I guess if there is no final authority to determine who is right. (This happens all the time by the way.) Hence, thousands of denominations. God bless you, I truly love the separated brethren, but I don’t know how you do it?

I do not claim to be an expert on the church fathers as I am just slowly working through them but they have said things that would be contrary to Catholic teaching. For example on John 6:

The only one I can see (unless I’m misreading it) that can be construed as contrary to Catholic faith would be the last. It also appears you bolded the first two out of context.

“Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said, Except ye eat My flesh and drink My blood, you have no life in you John 6:53 . They not having heard His saying in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that He was inviting them to eat flesh.”

First of all, whether St. Cyril was right or wrong is irrelevant. Some of the church fathers fell into heresy. This rests on the final authority of the Church, not personal opinions.

Now concerning this passage, spiritual does not equal symbolic. We see this from scripture. The Spirit is not symbolic; it’s as real as it gets!

The early church believed this.

catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

This also begs the question (because the Lord certainly knew their thoughts), why didn’t Jesus tell them to wait, because He was just talking symbolically?? NO! But He could have…

After experiencing all the miracles, and being with Him for a long time, they walked away in John 6:66.

We’ve seen the scriptural evidence…

We’ve seen the historical evidence…

There is also a miraculous element to all this that we have not discussed. Spend a few minutes at this website.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

God Bless,
JB

 

[christcnection1]

the church exit for over 1500 years without a bible, they went by the teachings of the early fathers of the church, saints, and during the begining of the church there were many false gospels and when the people didnt like the truth they began protesting against the church and when the bible came out they made up there own opinions about the teachings the gospel of man, and there was a saint preaching the gospel of man is worester than the gospel of the devil,. see how many churches has formed since the bible began, you are not saved by the bible, and god did not tell us to make many bibles and pass them on if it were so he would have gave one to us himself like the ten commandents, not one bible is correct there are thousands of different bibles, most of the teachings of the church were passed on by the early fathers of the church and arent written in the bibles.

hope you get it

My sibling in Christ…

I love you and thank you for sharing your views, but please take some additional time to edit, and collect your thoughts.

By no stretch of the imagination am I perfect at this, but I’m just telling you as someone who cares.

God Bless,
JB

 

[Allweather]

the church exit for over 1500 years without a bible, they went by the teachings of the early fathers of the church, saints, and during the begining of the church there were many false gospels and when the people didnt like the truth they began protesting against the church and when the bible came out they made up there own opinions about the teachings the gospel of man, and there was a saint preaching the gospel of man is worester than the gospel of the devil,. see how many churches has formed since the bible began, you are not saved by the bible, and god did not tell us to make many bibles and pass them on if it were so he would have gave one to us himself like the ten commandents, not one bible is correct there are thousands of different bibles, most of the teachings of the church were passed on by the early fathers of the church and arent written in the bibles.

hope you get it

I wonder if this isn’t pretty much true. Yes, there were the writings of the Apostles and synoptists, but these couldn’t have been widely distributed. As late as the 16th century it was very unusual for the man in the street to have access to a Bible, from what I’m made to understand. People took their Church learning from the bishops and priests, who in turn probably had access to the Biblical writings in some form, but nothing like what we have today.

Also, I wonder what the connection is, if any, between the wide availability of the printed Bible and the rise of the 19th century American cults. Heresies were rare before the wide distribution of the Bible, but became common after.

 

[Thomas_53]

The Bible is a Catholic Book written by men (by inspiration of Holy Spirit) that clearly believed in particuliary Catholic Doctrines and Traditions… that as they claimed where passed down from the Apostles. One cannot deny the historical writings of the Church Fathers on these matters.

1st Timothy 3:15 “If I am delayed that you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of Truth.”

If the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth… the upholder and defender of Truth then…Aren’t we as Catholics right to listen to the Church regarding matters of faith and morals?

Shouldn’t we listen to the Church regarding matters such as the proper interpretation of Scripture?

Scripture clearly states that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth … not the Bible.

I believe that Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that nullifies the word of God.

I’m Sorry but I cannont find anywhere in the Bible where it teaches Sola Scriptura.

Thomas_53

 

[akarmitage]

I’m very interested in this discussion. I have a friend who grew up Church of Christ, in a church that is fairly conservative (no instrumental music, no accepted reason for divorce, etc.). He says that every thing you need to know to be saved is in the Bible. The Catholic Church’s teachings are unnecessary. I’m never sure how to respond to that.

 

[christcnection1]

I’m very interested in this discussion. I have a friend who grew up Church of Christ, in a church that is fairly conservative (no instrumental music, no accepted reason for divorce, etc.). He says that every thing you need to know to be saved is in the Bible. The Catholic Church’s teachings are unnecessary. I’m never sure how to respond to that.

These articles may help you.

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0310sbs.asp

catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp

God Bless,
JB

 

[MBS1]

Interesting discussion. One thing that I wondered is why something called a figure - as Augustine says - HAS to mean it is a symbol - as was being implied. Anyone who reads Augustine knows that he never - in any of his writing - denied the Real Presense of Christ in the Eucharist - at least not from what I can find.

There are a lot of definitions of figure - some symbolic, some not(other than as a numeric meaning):

• the bodily form or frame: a slender or graceful figure

• • *form or shape, as determined by outlines or exterior surfaces: *to be round, square, or cubical in figure. *
• • *a character or personage, esp. one of distinction: a well-known figure in society
• -*an individual bodily form or a person with reference to form or appearance: A tall figure stood in the doorway.

Therefore, the use of the word “figure” by Augustine should not imply that he didn’t believe in the Real Presense. In fact I really believe that one of your quotes actually supports Augustines belief in the Real Presense. You quoted:

“3. Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become partakers of the divine nature 2 Peter 1:4”

I mean, what could be more Catholic than that? What looks like bread and wine (and therefore is only a figure of the bread and wine) is actually His Body, and His Blood. Than saying we are partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ - and become partakers of the divine nature by doing this. Strange quote to support your side, don’t you think?
MBS1.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You brought up a few things in that last post, but let’s stick with one thing.

So, the Church has no Authority and the book of the bible were decided basically by “Public opinion”

That doesn’t really give me much confidence in the bible, unfortunately.

Don’t you think it’s quite scary that the books that went into our bible were decided soley by common consensus?

And what about the people that did have extra books/less books? On what Authority did people tell them their “bibles” were wrong and thus getting them to use the same bible as everyone else?

JD

Is God not able to overrule human actions to preserve what He has inspired ?​

There is a Bible because there is a Sovereign God - not because there is a Church; the Church is an instrument, nothing else.

God is sovereign, therefore, no common consensus could exist unless His Providence allowed it - & the fact that things were as they were, provided indications as to which books were inspired, & which were not.

People overlook the use of the books before their final recognition, & their reception - and the contrasting lack of recognition, reception, or use in the Church at large (as well as the contents !) of those books that were *not *canonised.

If people read some of the NT Apocrypha, they would not be surprised that the NT Apocrypha were not canonised - most of them excluded themselves. Some of them could not be considered in the fourth century, because they did not yet exist - others, such as the Acts of Paul, were written c. 190 in Asia Minor, & detected early (the presbyter who wrote the AP was deposed). Some exist only in languages other than Latin & Greek: there are plenty of Coptic NT Apocrypha. Some are not of Christian origin (such as the Manichean NT Apocrypha).

There were a few marginal examples - Hebrews & Revelation were late in finding* universal* recognition; the “Shepherd” of Hermas was read at Rome for a while, apparently as an ecclesiastical rather than an inspired work; but most of the NT found recognition by 250-300. Ther was no need for Rome to lay down the law in this matter, so it did not (the Council of Rome under Damasus was not ecumenical; & the papal letter of 405 was to an individual bishop). Some groups rejected various books - the Alogi rejected the Fourth Gospel; but most of the Church though otherwise.

In addition, recognition of the books of the Bible is not based only, or even mainly, on the say-so of a Church authority - there are many concordant reasons for accepting books as sacred & inspired; these reasons, or rather, motives, suport one another. Accepting the witness of a book is not like a rope of a single strand - it’s a many-stranded rope: the say-so of an authority is certainly one of these strands, but it is not the most important, or even the most valuable; because the witness of the Holy Spirit takes that place. No Holy Spirit = no ability of anyone in the Church to discern anything. Councils & bishops & authorities are nothing, if God does not guide them.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Is God not able to overrule human actions to preserve what He has inspired ?​

There is a Bible because there is a Sovereign God - not because there is a Church; the Church is an instrument, nothing else.

God is sovereign, therefore, no common consensus could exist unless His Providence allowed it - & the fact that things were as they were, provided indications as to which books were inspired, & which were not.

People overlook the use of the books before their final recognition, & their reception - and the contrasting lack of recognition, reception, or use in the Church at large (as well as the contents !) of those books that were *not *canonised.

If people read some of the NT Apocrypha, they would not be surprised that the NT Apocrypha were not canonised - most of them excluded themselves. Some of them could not be considered in the fourth century, because they did not yet exist - others, such as the Acts of Paul, were written c. 190 in Asia Minor, & detected early (the presbyter who wrote the AP was deposed). Some exist only in languages other than Latin & Greek: there are plenty of Coptic NT Apocrypha. Some are not of Christian origin (such as the Manichean NT Apocrypha).

There were a few marginal examples - Hebrews & Revelation were late in finding* universal* recognition; the “Shepherd” of Hermas was read at Rome for a while, apparently as an ecclesiastical rather than an inspired work; but most of the NT found recognition by 250-300. Ther was no need for Rome to lay down the law in this matter, so it did not (the Council of Rome under Damasus was not ecumenical; & the papal letter of 405 was to an individual bishop). Some groups rejected various books - the Alogi rejected the Fourth Gospel; but most of the Church though otherwise.

In addition, recognition of the books of the Bible is not based only, or even mainly, on the say-so of a Church authority - there are many concordant reasons for accepting books as sacred & inspired; these reasons, or rather, motives, suport one another. Accepting the witness of a book is not like a rope of a single strand - it’s a many-stranded rope: the say-so of an authority is certainly one of these strands, but it is not the most important, or even the most valuable; because the witness of the Holy Spirit takes that place. No Holy Spirit = no ability of anyone in the Church to discern anything. Councils & bishops & authorities are nothing, if God does not guide them.

AMEN!!

 

[jonfan]

AMEN!!

The Bible, as the inspired recorded of revelation, contains the word of God; that is, it contains those revealed truths which the Holy Ghost wishes to be transmitted in writing. However, all revealed truths are not contained in the Bible (see TRADITION); neither is every truth in the Bible revealed, if by revelation is meant the manifestation of hidden truths which could not other be known. Much of the Scripture came to its writers through the channels of ordinary knowledge, but its sacred character and Divine authority are not limited to those parts which contain revelation strictly so termed. The Bible not only contains the word of God; it is the word of God. The primary author is the Holy Ghost, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration. It was declared by the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) that the sacred and canonical character of Scripture would not be sufficiently explained by saying that the books were composed by human diligence and then approved by the Church, or that they contained revelation without error. They are sacred and canonical “because, having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church”. The inerrancy of the Bible follows as a consequence of this Divine authorship. Wherever the sacred writer makes a statement as his own, that statement is the word of God and infallibly true, whatever be the subject-matter of the statement.

It will be seen, therefore, that though the inspiration of any writer and the sacred character of his work be antecedent to its recognition by the Church yet we are dependent upon the Church for our knowledge of the existence of this inspiration. She is the appointed witness and guardian of revelation. From her alone we know what books belong to the Bible. At the Council of Trent she enumerated the books which must be considered “as sacred and canonical”. They are the seventy-two books found in Catholic editions, forty-five in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New. Protestant copies usually lack the seven books (viz: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and First and Second Maccabees) and parts of books (viz: Esther 10:4-16:24, and Daniel 3:24-90; 13:1-14:42) which are not found in the Jewish editions of the Old Testament.

newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm

 

[ALLFORHIM]

The Bible, as the inspired recorded of revelation, contains the word of God; that is, it contains those revealed truths which the Holy Ghost wishes to be transmitted in writing. However, all revealed truths are not contained in the Bible (see TRADITION); neither is every truth in the Bible revealed, if by revelation is meant the manifestation of hidden truths which could not other be known. Much of the Scripture came to its writers through the channels of ordinary knowledge, but its sacred character and Divine authority are not limited to those parts which contain revelation strictly so termed. The Bible not only contains the word of God; it is the word of God. The primary author is the Holy Ghost, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration. It was declared by the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) that the sacred and canonical character of Scripture would not be sufficiently explained by saying that the books were composed by human diligence and then approved by the Church, or that they contained revelation without error. They are sacred and canonical “because, having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church”. The inerrancy of the Bible follows as a consequence of this Divine authorship. Wherever the sacred writer makes a statement as his own, that statement is the word of God and infallibly true, whatever be the subject-matter of the statement.

It will be seen, therefore, that though the inspiration of any writer and the sacred character of his work be antecedent to its recognition by the Church yet we are dependent upon the Church for our knowledge of the existence of this inspiration. She is the appointed witness and guardian of revelation. From her alone we know what books belong to the Bible. At the Council of Trent she enumerated the books which must be considered “as sacred and canonical”. They are the seventy-two books found in Catholic editions, forty-five in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New. Protestant copies usually lack the seven books (viz: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and First and Second Maccabees) and parts of books (viz: Esther 10:4-16:24, and Daniel 3:24-90; 13:1-14:42) which are not found in the Jewish editions of the Old Testament.

newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm

I know Ive heard it all before. But, the truth was not just given to the CC it was given to every human on this earth if they so choose to read it. Again, the CC doesnt corner the market on the truth.
Thanks for the info. Jon

 

[Kay_Cee]

I’m very interested in this discussion. I have a friend who grew up Church of Christ, in a church that is fairly conservative (no instrumental music, no accepted reason for divorce, etc.). He says that every thing you need to know to be saved is in the Bible. The Catholic Church’s teachings are unnecessary. I’m never sure how to respond to that.

1. Well, in order to be saved,* the first thing you need to know* is where to find the information on what you must do to be saved. That’s essential, isn’t it? According to your friend, you need to know to go to the Bible, right?

So, if **everything **you need to know to be saved is in the Bible, then *the knowledge that “Everything you need to know to be saved is in the Bible” *must also come from the Bible.

But where does the Bible say that everything you need to know to be saved is in the Bible? It doesn’t.

Ask your friend where he got the idea that “Everything you need to know to be saved is in the Bible.” Since the Bible doesn’t say this, he will have to give you a source outside the Bible.

1. If “Everything you need to know to be saved is in the Bible,” another thing you absolutely need to know is what the Bible is. After all, it’s a collection of books–from the Book of Genesis through the Book of Revelation.

Ask your friend how he knows he has the right books in his Bible. Since the Bible doesn’t say which books are the right ones, he will have to give you a source outside the Bible.

This will show there are at least two things outside the Bible that (by his criterea) you need to know to be saved. Therefore, it isn’t true that “Everything you know to be saved is in the Bible.”

 

[mozart-250]

1. Well, in order to be saved,* the first thing you need to know* is where to find the information on what you must do to be saved. That’s essential, isn’t it? According to your friend, you need to know to go to the Bible, right?

So, if everything you need to know to be saved is in the Bible, then *the knowledge that “Everything you need to know to be saved is in the Bible” *must also come from the Bible.

But where does the Bible say that everything you need to know to be saved is in the Bible? It doesn’t.

Ask your friend where he got the idea that “Everything you need to know to be saved is in the Bible.” Since the Bible doesn’t say this, he will have to give you a source outside the Bible.

Not necessarily. Who says that you need to believe “everything you need to be know to be saved is in the Bible” in order to be saved?

1. If “Everything you need to know to be saved is in the Bible,” another thing you absolutely need to know is what the Bible is. After all, it’s a collection of books–from the Book of Genesis through the Book of Revelation.

Ask your friend how he knows he has the right books in his Bible. Since the Bible doesn’t say which books are the right ones, he will have to give you a source outside the Bible.

This will show there are at least two things outside the Bible that (by his criterea) you need to know to be saved. Therefore, it isn’t true that “Everything you know to be saved is in the Bible.”

Not necessarily, who says you need to be absolutely right what is in the Bible in order to be saved?

 

[christcnection1]

Not necessarily. Who says that you need to believe “everything you need to be know to be saved is in the Bible” in order to be saved?

Not necessarily, who says you need to be absolutely right what is in the Bible in order to be saved?

I think you make a valid point. If Sola Fide (faith alone) is correct, as long as you have faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you could be theologically wrong on just about everything in the Bible, yet still be saved.

Bible knowledge and most theological truths then would not necessarily have anything to do with being saved.

Is this partly the point you are trying to make?

I do not even think Catholics believe this, particularly for individuals who fall under the category of “through no fault of their own.”

Certainly, we believe those who are most closely in line with the Bible will have the best chance of salvation, and will stand in a better place during the final judgement.

 

[mozart-250]

I think you make a valid point. If Sola Fide (faith alone) is correct, as long as you have faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you could be theologically wrong on just about everything in the Bible, yet still be saved.

Bible knowledge and most theological truths then would not necessarily have anything to do with being saved.

Is this partly the point you are trying to make?

That is exactly it…althought it is really not a function of Sola Fide.

It is just the idea that getting most theological truths correct (particularly those that do not have a moral dimension) is not essential for salvation. I would rather be morally correct than theologically correct.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Not necessarily. Who says that you need to believe “everything you need to be know to be saved is in the Bible” in order to be saved?

Not necessarily, who says you need to be absolutely right what is in the Bible in order to be saved?

I think you misunderstood me. I was disputing the notion.

The OP’s friend said “Everything you need to know to be saved is in the Bible.” I was pointing out that’s logically impossible. For one thing, you have to know what the Bible is in order to know what’s in the Bible. Therefore, you must know the canon. So you have to know something that’s not mentioned in scripture just to know what constitutes scripture. Since that’s something that’s not in the Bible, it can’t be that **everything **you need to know to be saved is in there. You can’t even begin to read what scripture says about justification until you know what scripture is!