For those who say the Bible is "sufficient" for salvation

[Krocker]

I didn’t read all 15 pages but I’m just on fire whenever I hear that nothing else is needed … works are needed. Jesus was very clear about what we need to do (visit the sick, those in prison, clothed the naked, feed the hungry, etc.) in order to hear “welcome.” You will not hear “welcome to heaven…” if you don’t do it. Just saying: Jesus is my savior is never good enough! Are those words omitted on purpose??? Nobody puts them together with “accepting Jesus as own Savior” and you’re done - saved!

Another thread for another time. Suffice it to say that the NT has nearly 200 references that *could be *interpreted as belief being ALL you need. I know this “contradicts” James, but how do you interpret the inconsistencies? Do you have all the answers? (I’m not being condescending, but I am being rhetorical). Do you just ignore John and Romans? Or, do you ignore James? How do you mesh the two? My point is that it is difficult to do and reasonable arguments exist on either side. Catholics don’t allow this discussion because it’s “my way or the highway”. Protestants do, and we’re berated for it. But, again, maybe this is best addressed on another thread at another time.

 

[sandusky]

flyersfan1088:

There are many points, and sorry, I quoted the wrong thing from your post. Since you are unwilling to click your mouse, I guess I will have to post it for you. As a former Catholic, you should have known all of this anyway. Since you didn’t, don’t you at least owe it to yourself to know what you left behind?

Ah yes, the ”former Catholics are former Catholics because they don’t know anything about Catholicism” position.

flyersfan1088:

In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter…Origen…St. Basil…St. Chrysostom…

And others in addition to those three; I think they’re the ones who got it right; their understanding aligns with scripture (everyone is involved in the guilt of Adam’s sin cf Rom 3:23), whereas the present-day dogmas do not.

flyersfan1088:

But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science.

As Catholic author, Juniper Carol states:”Theologically, we must face up to an evolution,…From the extant philological data it does not seem that the personal sinlessness of Mary or her Immaculate Conception were explicitly taught as Catholic doctrine in the patristic West.”

Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 147.

flyersfan1088:

In the testimony of the Fathers two points are insisted upon: her absolute purity and her position as the second Eve (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:22).

Obviously not (see above).**1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.**Please explain how that passage sets forth Mary as "the second Eve."

 

[MarcoPolo]

The inspired word of God is not “accurate”? I thought we were in agreement on that, I guess not. Also, I don’t have a problem with Tradition, I really don’t. The problem is equating Tradition with scripture. It cannot be done for the reasons I’ve stated repeatedly, for which I’ve begged a response, and have yet to get one. That is why I plead evasiveness … and not just you. But, I will give you a break since you called me out and everything.

Maybe my sentence wasn’t clear. The Bible is accurate. I was trying to say I would not argue with that. And I’ve seen numerous posts showing that Revelation is through Scripture or Tradition, I cited the Canon, etc…Jude 1:9 (maybe that was in another thread though). But anyway, carry on!

 

[Krocker]

Maybe my sentence wasn’t clear. The Bible is accurate. I was trying to say I would not argue with that. And I’ve seen numerous posts showing that Revelation is through Scripture or Tradition, I cited the Canon, etc…Jude 1:9 (maybe that was in another thread though). But anyway, carry on!

I misunderstood you then – reading emotionless typing will do that sometimes. Well, it appears we are not going to solve all of Christendom’s differences with this discussion. I understand your response but I think it begs the questions of what tradition?, whose tradition?, to whom is it revealed?, when is it revealed?, how is it revealed?, etc., etc. It makes perfect sense to you if you believe all of the foregoing are done solely through the Catholic Church. I think it’s probably safe to say that only Catholics believe that (and vice versa with Protestants). And, I’m not sure there is any way to convince anyone otherwise because there is essentially no empirical evidence. But I think that brings me back to my original point – there is empirical evidence for the Bible, tons of it, more than any writing ever. I guess that’s why I start with the Bible and give everything else a little lesser weight. Anyway, I think I’ve said that before once or a dozen times.

 

[MarcoPolo]

And, I’m not sure there is any way to convince anyone otherwise because there is essentially no empirical evidence.

Well, since the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth…what they say is empirical. You trusted their empirical assembly of Scripture. And the traditions seen in the ECF, when they speak with one voice, as identified by the Church, is empirical. And Jude’s use of Tradition in 1:9 and other places are empirical.

I understand you have a different concept of the Church and that you wish to start with the Bible and that is commendable. So you don’t have to repeat that.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

A couple of points. I already told you where to find the “essentials”. Start with your own Apostles Creed.

OK. So you simply drop the “Catholic” part. That invalidates THAT list. Care to try again?

And as far as the necessity of Mary lacking original sin, I’ll give you a quick background on chromosomal research. A woman has XX chromosomes. A man has XY chromosomes, with the Y chromosome coming from the male donor. No matter whether Mary had sin or not, she could not be the source of Jesus because she cannot supply the Y chromosome. The fact that Jesus was in Mary at all was a miracle of God. THAT is the miracle. Not whether Mary had sin or not. God had to create the miracle of Jesus REGARDLESS of whether Mary had sin – the Y chromosome had to get in there somehow.

NICE rationalization! Gorgeous in it’s irrelevancy!

I’d LOVE to kow your authoritative source for this interpretation! Please, please let us see your sources.

So, again, what does Mary’s original sin or lack thereof have to do with your belief and devotion to Jesus? And I do not believe generic notions of receiving the “Full Truth” to be sufficient. That is no different than me telling you that the “Full Truth” was revealed in the Bible and not by men who deem themselves infallible – or some such other Protestant belief. I know what kind of reaction that would get on this site, and it wouldn’t be pretty.

You don’t have to believe anything at all!

People can offer you their understandings of theological things, and you can offer yours.

I’m enjoying yours enormously! Since you obviously have NO belief in revelation, why do you even bother with theological things at all?

My guess: To prove theological things to be universally “silly”, misguided and dangerous. Though I could be wrong or incomplete in my understanding of where you’re coming from.

I’m still waiting for YOUR list of “essentials”, as opposed to your assumption of what MY LIST SHOULD BE (“My Creed”).

Thanks for being a good forum citizen and supporting your statements as made. In other words, you contend that there exists a list of “essentials” and have yet to produce it. Thanks again for your help in this matter.

 

[Krocker]

Well, since the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth…what they say is empirical. You trusted their empirical assembly of Scripture. And the traditions seen in the ECF, when they speak with one voice, as identified by the Church, is empirical. And Jude’s use of Tradition in 1:9 and other places are empirical.

I understand you have a different concept of the Church and that you wish to start with the Bible and that is commendable. So you don’t have to repeat that.

Did I mention that I prefer to start with the Bible? I wasn’t sure if I hit that point yet. I could tell you why I think your examples are insufficient, but you can probably guess already.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

…
My point is that it is difficult to do and reasonable arguments exist on either side. Catholics don’t allow this discussion because it’s “my way or the highway”. Protestants do, and we’re berated for it. But, again, maybe this is best addressed on another thread at another time.

The protestant position is that “the market will sort it out” in terms of coming to what is actual truth.

The Catholic position is that only by being revealed can actual truth be arrived at.

Has the “protestant market” developed any truth, now accepted by both groups, that wasn’t first developed by the Church (Catholic)?

Is it not the case that protestants have only “tossed out” items, and never added a thing?

What does that point to, if true, to you?

 

[justinthemartyr]

krocker, the point that the church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth is Biblical.

1 tim 3:13-15

 

[Krocker]

OK. So you simply drop the “Catholic” part. That invalidates THAT list. Care to try again?

*Except “catholic” means universal, not “Catholic” as you now understand it to mean. *

NICE rationalization! Gorgeous in it’s irrelevancy!

*Irrelevant how? This directly addresses your assertion with undisputed scientific fact. I’m not even sure how else to respond to that, except I can call your response irrelevant, then you can call my re-response irrelevant and we can continue on and on. Or you could tell me how this undisputed fact changes or doesn’t change your view. You obviously had it wrong the first time. *

I’d LOVE to kow your authoritative source for this interpretation! Please, please let us see your sources.

*It’s called Biology 101. *

You don’t have to believe anything at all!

People can offer you their understandings of theological things, and you can offer yours.

I’m enjoying yours enormously! Since you obviously have NO belief in revelation, why do you even bother with theological things at all?

My guess: To prove theological things to be universally “silly”, misguided and dangerous. Though I could be wrong or incomplete in my understanding of where you’re coming from.

I’m still waiting for YOUR list of “essentials”, as opposed to your assumption of what MY LIST SHOULD BE (“My Creed”).

Thanks for being a good forum citizen and supporting your statements as made. In other words, you contend that there exists a list of “essentials” and have yet to produce it. Thanks again for your help in this matter.

*The Apostles Creed is not a Catholic creed, it is a Christian creed. Read it and tell me how it differs from Protestantism. I find it funny that you think you’ve really backed me into a corner when I’ve responded to your question three times now. And if you re-read the posts, you’ll find that you’re putting words in my mouth. I understand that it’s much easier to argue when you make up both sides of the argument, but it makes you look silly. My point from the beginning is that verifiable is more reliable than unverifiable or less verifiable. It’s a simple premise really. *

 

[Krocker]

Just FYI, I had more responses in the body of the quote in my last post. Not sure what happened . . .

 

[Krocker]

The protestant position is that “the market will sort it out” in terms of coming to what is actual truth.

The Catholic position is that only by being revealed can actual truth be arrived at.

Has the “protestant market” developed any truth, now accepted by both groups, that wasn’t first developed by the Church (Catholic)?

Is it not the case that protestants have only “tossed out” items, and never added a thing?

What does that point to, if true, to you?

The easy and obvious answer is that much of the Catholic “Truth” is unsupported. For example, I have seen absolutely zero “truth” for the Immaculate Conception, except for Catholics telling me it’s “truth”. If you believe you’re the only one’s getting divine revelation, that’s fine — arrogant and unsupported, but fine. I can live with that.

 

[justinthemartyr]

*The Apostles Creed is not a Catholic creed, it is a Christian creed. Read it and tell me how it differs from Protestantism. I find it funny that you think you’ve really backed me into a corner when I’ve responded to your question three times now. And if you re-read the posts, you’ll find that you’re putting words in my mouth. I understand that it’s much easier to argue when you make up both sides of the argument, but it makes you look silly. My point from the beginning is that verifiable is more reliable than unverifiable or less verifiable. It’s a simple premise really. *

show me someone living at the time the apostles creed was written, that believed anything remotely close to what protestants in the post revolt era believed(16th century). The church was One Holy Catholic and Apostolic. There were no sola scripturists, no predestinationalists(in the sense of calvin), no one believing that the Eucharist was not the Actual Glorified Body Blood Soul and Divinity of our Lord. The Church was Catholic and based in Rome from the time Peter and Paul went their to evangelise historically.

You cannot take the general statements of the aposltes creed and give credit to any protestant living during the time. for their were no churches proclaiming what the reformers claimed at this time.

 

[Krocker]

krocker, the point that the church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth is Biblical.

1 tim 3:13-15

And that supports your point only if you insert “Catholic Church” where it says “Church.” Obviously, there is disagreement as to whether this is the case … or we’d all be Catholics … and we’re not.

It’s just too great of a leap for me and many others to make that a general reference to the church being the pillar means the Catholic Church can effectively decide any and all things Biblical until the end of time … inerrantly. If that were the case, don’t you think the Bible would have a lot more about official Church declarations, rather than letters … from individuals … nowhere near an “official” church … often in prison? Wouldn’t Paul have said “the church officially says this,” or “Peter (even assuming popeship) officially or infallibly said that”? I’m not trying to be a smart-a here, I’m really curious what you think.

 

[Krocker]

show me someone living at the time the apostles creed was written, that believed anything remotely close to what protestants in the post revolt era believed(16th century). The church was One Holy Catholic and Apostolic. There were no sola scripturists, no predestinationalists(in the sense of calvin), no one believing that the Eucharist was not the Actual Glorified Body Blood Soul and Divinity of our Lord. The Church was Catholic and based in Rome from the time Peter and Paul went their to evangelise historically.

You cannot take the general statements of the aposltes creed and give credit to any protestant living during the time. for their were no churches proclaiming what the reformers claimed at this time.

Again, get your dictionary – catholic means universal, not the 2007 defintion of the Roman Catholic Church. The Apostles Creed was first documented in approximately 390, well after Peter and Paul went to Rome to “found” your Roman Catholic Church. So why is “your” specific church not mentioned? There were gnostics at that time you know – it would have been very easy to say what comes from Rome is right. It’s quite a leap to suggest that it must be referring to you, when the opportunity presented itself for such an acknowledgement, and it doesn’t exist (especially given the fervor from which you now argue that the ONLY truth comes from the RCC).

I’m not a predestination-ist, so I can’t respond to your next point.

Transubstantiation is another thread for another time, but I don’t believe it relevant for eternal salvation whether you believe one way or the other. If you must press, than a simple DNA test or blood alcohol test should suffice. And I know there is some sort of argument that it really is the body and blood of Christ, but it really isn’t either. Convenient.

The fact is the Apostles Creed is an early statement of the Christian faith, believed by both protestants and catholics. I’m sorry to float your boat, but protestants are not bad people with horrible beliefs. They’re largely the same as yours.

 

[DB_AND_ALI]

Big difference. The Roman Catholic Church officially frowns on the bloody ritual, but makes little difference to the locals, who participate anyway…

If those christians taking part in this ritual actually feel closer to G-d , then who are we to sit in judgement of them !

 

[Fisher]

“**All scripture **is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” -2nd Timothy 3:16

“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by **every word **that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)

Matt
1 Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

and the scripture cannot be broken;(John 10:35)

Romans 3: 4 God forbid: yea,** let God be true**, but every man a liar; **as it is written **

Titus1: 2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began

To him who believes, no explanation is necessary; to him that believeth not, no explanation is possible.

 

[MarcoPolo]

“**All scripture **is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” -2nd Timothy 3:16

“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by **every word **that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)

Matt
1 Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

and the scripture cannot be broken;(John 10:35)

Romans 3: 4 God forbid: yea,** let God be true**, but every man a liar; **as it is written **

Titus1: 2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began

To him who believes, no explanation is necessary; to him that believeth not, no explanation is possible.

Thank you for posting those wonderful verses. I’m not sure for what purpose you posted them, but thank you all the same.

 

[justinthemartyr]

And that supports your point only if you insert “Catholic Church” where it says “Church.” Obviously, there is disagreement as to whether this is the case … or we’d all be Catholics … and we’re not.

It’s just too great of a leap for me and many others to make that a general reference to the church being the pillar means the Catholic Church can effectively decide any and all things Biblical until the end of time … inerrantly. If that were the case, don’t you think the Bible would have a lot more about official Church declarations, rather than letters … from individuals … nowhere near an “official” church … often in prison? Wouldn’t Paul have said “the church officially says this,” or “Peter (even assuming popeship) officially or infallibly said that”? I’m not trying to be a smart-a here, I’m really curious what you think.

Again, show me a non catholic church in every century previous to the revolt of luther? Show me their consistent writings concerning scriptures, show me their canonization of the scriptures, show me their authority in every age.

there is no discussion on this issue, the church was a virtual monolith other than a few small sects that fell to the wayside. Heretical sects cannot be placed in this category as they were dealt with by the church that had the power to anahtematize per matth 18:18-20

 

[CesarAugusto]

“**All scripture **is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” -2nd Timothy 3:16

“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by **every word **that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)

Matt
1 Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

and the scripture cannot be broken;(John 10:35)

Romans 3: 4 God forbid: yea,** let God be true**, but every man a liar; **as it is written **

Titus1: 2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began

To him who believes, no explanation is necessary; to him that believeth not, no explanation is possible.

The Catholic will agree with all of this. However, those are all references to the Old Testament. Does that mean that the OT is enough? Of course not.

What is Scripture? What books belong in the Bible? How do you know that the books that are in the Bible should be there? How do you know there are not other books that maybe should be there and are not?