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

[Krocker]

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

So what does that prove? I’m not getting your point.

A protestant would argue that the church went too far, that Luther pointed out some questionable things (some right, some wrong), that Tyndale allowed the everyday literate person (admittedly few) to read scriptures for themselves, that those people also had questions and … whallah … the great divide. Catholics and Protestants as we call them today did not exist before this time. I think that history is pretty well unquestioned. I’m not challenging history and, in fact, I’m embracing history. The Bible is a historical document unlike any other. It is verified and verifiable more than any writing or oral tradition EVER, and that’s all there is to it. For that HISTORICAL reason alone, the doctrine of prima scriptura is the only logical way to view the Bible and tradition. If you want to ignore logic and rely on what the Catholic Church tells you … fine, I don’t have a problem with that. But why am I chastized for trying to mesh logic and faith regarding certain doctrinal issues? Can they not ever coexist?

 

[justinthemartyr]

From my perspective, you were seeming to try to say that there was something other than the Catholic Church in the first four centuries which had correct teachings and that brought forth the scriptures through every century by the Hand of God.

You stated this by referring to the verse that was quoted in 1 tim 3:13-15 as being something else other than the Catholic church.

Do you think that God was able to utilize the one visible church for so long and then they failed him teribly and had to be replaced by thousands of other churches teaching contradictory things to each other with no unity?

If that is so, then Christ would have stated an untruth in promising the Holy Spirit and that the paraclete would guide them(the Church) into all Truth, and that He would be with them til the end of time and that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church He instituted.

 

[Krocker]

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?

The RCC did not invent the Bible people. The books of the Bible were used, and nearly universally agreed upon, well before Constantine in the mid 300s — 300 years after they were written. Constantine just “rubber stamped” them “officially.”

I have a question for you, even assuming the Catholic Church’s tradition “created” the Bible – as I think you are implying – when did the Catholic Church decide what books would be in the Old Testament? The Pentateuch was carried with the Ark of the Covenant you know. So, somebody obviously decided what was scripture before the RCC.

 

[Fisher]

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?

Is The Bible God’s Word?

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

Because it claims to be (as read in our Scripture above).

Because It hits the nail right on the head concerning the sinfulness of mankind. 2nd Timothy 3:1-7 reads, “: This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Mankind is evil through and through. The humanists say man can improve. The New Age gang says that we can become gods. Evolutionists claim we all came from apes (with NO proof whatsoever). The Mormons say we can become gods. Do you think the American Psychiatric Association is going to tell you that you’re a sinner on your way to Hell if you die in your sins? No! This is not just religion friend, this is YOUR LIFE!!! What Book is there on this earth that gives you the plain truth about mankind and life? THE WORD OF GOD is the only answer! The Bible plainly teaches that man is prone to destruction because man has a sin-nature (Romans 3:10,23;5:12;7:21).

Archaeology is in agreement with the Word of God. Not one spadefull of dirt has ever been uncovered to disprove the Word of God. In fact, many Archaeological expeditions have provided substantial evidence in support of Biblical claims. We don’t need Archeology to prove the Bible, the Bible is evidence enough by itself. Yet, here are more proofs if you need them. The Bible Itself is all the evidence I need.

The Bible is scientifically accurate. Isaiah 40:22 declares that the earth is round. Leviticus 17:11 declares that the life is in the blood. For centuries doctors foolishly drained the blood out of their patients resulting in certain death. The Bible also mentions astronomy, Job 9:9 mentions Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades. Proverb 17:22 teaches that good health is directly linked to being happy. Psychiatrists offices are overflowing today with the stressed out people. Happiness can only come from being saved and living for the Truth of God’s Word.

The Bible was miraculously written. The Bible was written over a 1,500 year period by 40 different men as God’s Holy Spirit moved through them. There is NO earthly way possible that so many men (most of whom never met each other), could have written so many different books in different styles that all perfectly merge into one meaningful Book, but with God all things are possible!!!

The attack from false religions. The book of Koran is a jumbled mess containing no prophecy at all. The Koran attacks Christians, Jews, and the doctrines of the Bible. The Jehovah Witnesses (JW’s) claim that Michael the archangel became Jesus. They deny Christ’s deity. The Mormons deny Christ’s deity.

The woeful condition of the world. The Bible clearly teaches that Satan is the god of this world (2nd Corinthians 4:4). John 10:10 plainly declares that the Devil only comes to kill, steal, and destroy. It’s obvious that there are evil forces at work beyond human suffering and war. Most people believe in God and Satan, so why is it so hard to accept the idea that God would want to communicate with His creation (humanity)? It doesn’t surprise me that spoiled Americans would deny the existence of God and Satan, but ask anyone in a third world nation if they believe. Pride blinds men’s eyes. 1st John 5:19 declares that the whole world lieth in wickedness.

The Holy Spirit in my heart. Romans 8:9 reads, “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” And Romans 8:16, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:”

cont

 

[Fisher]

Man wouldn’t have written the bible. Man couldn’t have written the Bible if he wanted to, and wouldn’t if he could have. Why would men write a book condemning themselves? Not one book throughout history even comes near to the Bible’s description of mankind. Jeremiah 17:9 reads, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” What man could write such a thing?

The lie of evolution. The fact that evolution is taught as if it were a fact all across the world is evidence of man’s unwillingness to learn the Truth. Evolution has no scientific basis, it cannot be tested or studied. Evolution is NOT science, but a mere theory of atheist conjectures. If the Bible is not true, then why is mankind desperately trying to hide his ignorance concerning creation. There is NO answer which makes sense except God. Please read Is There a God?. Evolution is proof of one thing, that man is afraid of the Truth.

Fulfilled Bible Prophecy. The Word of God is filled with much prophecy. Here is a page of many Fulfilled Bible Prophecies. It would be astronomically impossible for any one man to have fulfilled all of the prophecies which Christ fulfilled.

 

[Krocker]

From my perspective, you were seeming to try to say that there was something other than the Catholic Church in the first four centuries which had correct teachings and that brought forth the scriptures through every century by the Hand of God.

You stated this by referring to the verse that was quoted in 1 tim 3:13-15 as being something else other than the Catholic church.

Do you think that God was able to utilize the one visible church for so long and then they failed him teribly and had to be replaced by thousands of other churches teaching contradictory things to each other with no unity?

If that is so, then Christ would have stated an untruth in promising the Holy Spirit and that the paraclete would guide them(the Church) into all Truth, and that He would be with them til the end of time and that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church He instituted.

You’re assuming the RCC was the first church. That’s a big assumption. I’m saying the Christian Church existed, but it’s no more provable that this church was the current version of the RCC than any current Protestant denomination. We all trace our history to Jesus. Our interpretation of history is obviously skewed to suit our own doctrinal beliefs. I’m sure there are other threads discussing this topic.

And I can anticipate your response, “we’re the only ones that have been consistent doctrinally.” Well, that’s an opinion. And it is also based on the principle that the RCC can come up with new stuff as it “becomes more clear” and “more is revealed.” There are RCC doctrines that cannot be historically verified to the time of Jesus – e.g., the Immaculate Conception in the 390s. Protestants would call that belief – that only the RCC can receive divine revelation – unscriptural. So, again, doctrinal consistency is arguable.

 

[MarcoPolo]

You’re assuming the RCC was the first church. That’s a big assumption.

You really need to read the writings of the earliest Christians, Krocker.

 

[justasking4]

You’re assuming the RCC was the first church. That’s a big assumption. I’m saying the Christian Church existed, but it’s no more provable that this church was the current version of the RCC than any current Protestant denomination. We all trace our history to Jesus. Our interpretation of history is obviously skewed to suit our own doctrinal beliefs. I’m sure there are other threads discussing this topic.

And I can anticipate your response, “we’re the only ones that have been consistent doctrinally.” Well, that’s an opinion. And it is also based on the principle that the RCC can come up with new stuff as it “becomes more clear” and “more is revealed.” There are RCC doctrines that cannot be historically verified to the time of Jesus – e.g., the Immaculate Conception in the 390s. Protestants would call that belief – that only the RCC can receive divine revelation – unscriptural. So, again, doctrinal consistency is arguable.

You make some good points here. It is assumed by many catholics that the the church in NT is the same as the Roman catholic church when in reality its not when we look at the details of both.

 

[justinthemartyr]

You’re assuming the RCC was the first church. That’s a big assumption. I’m saying the Christian Church existed, but it’s no more provable that this church was the current version of the RCC than any current Protestant denomination. We all trace our history to Jesus. Our interpretation of history is obviously skewed to suit our own doctrinal beliefs. I’m sure there are other threads discussing this topic.

And I can anticipate your response, “we’re the only ones that have been consistent doctrinally.” Well, that’s an opinion. And it is also based on the principle that the RCC can come up with new stuff as it “becomes more clear” and “more is revealed.” There are RCC doctrines that cannot be historically verified to the time of Jesus – e.g., the Immaculate Conception in the 390s. Protestants would call that belief – that only the RCC can receive divine revelation – unscriptural. So, again, doctrinal consistency is arguable.

I make no assumptions, history proves it unanimously.

where is your church and their writings concerning the Old and NT in the first 1500 years?

footnotes and sources please. thanks.

 

[justasking4]

I make no assumptions, history proves it unanimously.

where is your church and their writings concerning the Old and NT in the first 1500 years?

footnotes and sources please. thanks.

Protestants came through the Roman catholic church and through them the can trace their the apostles and the scriptures.

 

[Metaron]

You make some good points here. It is assumed by many Catholics that the the church in NT is the same as the Roman Catholic Church when in reality its not when we look at the details of both.

Uh, actually, historians, religious and secular, agree on this unamimously, and anyone who knows patristics knows this. It’s only a few fringe fundamentalists who make the claim that it is somehow altogether different. By the way, every Roman Catholic bishop or priest has a historical chart of succession, tracing them all the way back to the apostles. So, yeah, say what you want, but Protestants don’t have that, nor do their “ministers” have any more authority than John Christian living down the street.

 

[Metaron]

Protestants came through the Roman Catholic Church and through them the can trace their the Apostles and the Scriptures.

Actually, like I said, they didn’t keep any succession, so the first point is invalid, and, secondly, they have a different canon, so the second point is invalid.

 

[Metaron]

Protestants came through the Roman catholic church and through them the can trace their the apostles and the scriptures.

By the way, why did the protesters take the view invented by Zwingli, the “symbolic” communion, which was never believed before the 1500’s? Why’d they abandon the Apostolic teaching of the Real Prescence of Christ?

 

[flyersfan1088]

The IC, first written about in 348, and made infallible in 1854 should not be given the same weight as writings from the 40s.

I know that this isn’t reason enough to change your mind, but here’s something else to consider. The oldest extant writing is from 348. Many writings have been lost over the centuries. It’s interesting to ponder why there was no outcry or flurry of writings to defend against the new “heresy” of Mary’s sinlessness. It’s stated matter of factly and nobody cries foul. That leads me to the conclusion that it was already an accepted belief. You may not reach the same conclusion, but it’s something to consider.

 

[Krocker]

I make no assumptions, history proves it unanimously.

where is your church and their writings concerning the Old and NT in the first 1500 years?

footnotes and sources please. thanks.

You are missing the point I was trying to make; I suspect that was my fault rather than yours. In any event, you conclude that everything that occurred in the first 1500 years is the RCC. The contrary argument is that the RCC has essentially grabbed onto this common church history and adopted it as its own, excluding anyone who disagrees from doing the same. This is why many Protestants are puzzled why Peter is “naturally” the first pope because he was called “this rock.” This is especially true when Paul seems to have a far greater role in the NT than Peter.

Anyway, you’re not going to get footnotes and sources, and you knew that before you asked the question. The fact is though, it doesn’t matter. The FACTS are that the Bible is the most verified and verifiable work in the history of the world and, logically, it must be given greater weight than any other oral or written tradition. That is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. The FACTS are that the Immaculate Conception cannot be historically verified to the time of Jesus, yet Catholics claim this to be the “sacred tradition” that must have been referred to in the Bible. Treating the less verified as equal to the most verified is illogical. These questions are logical, reasonable, and real. If the Immaculate Conception cannot be historically verified as the “tradition” being referred to in the Bible, how do we know any other “tradition”-based doctrine is True, such as infallibility? In my opinion, we can’t. In your opinion, its faith in the Catholic Church. I just need more than the words of the Catholic Church when reason tells me the RCC’s conclusion is lacking. I’m not trying to offend anyone, I’m just telling you my opinion, which I think is imminently reasonable.

Another point keeps getting brought up, however, and you allude to it again here that, in effect, the protestant church cannot be right because it wasn’t around for the first 1500 years. In addition to what I said above about the nature of this “original” church, this conclusion is also logical only if the church of the 1500 years got everything right. If something was wrong in the church during that time, a split wouldn’t necessarily be wrong – and may very well be right. A lot of arguments are directed at Luther, and rightly so, as the author of the 95 theses. But Tyndale’s translation is just as important if not more important. This effectively constituted the first time laymen (admittedly few could read, but certainly some could) were able to read the Bible that had been previously spoon-fed to them. Questions arose. Those questions had as much or more to do with protestantism as Luther. Since those questions could not have arisen prior to Tyndale’s translation, there naturally would be minimal evidence of contradiction.

 

[Krocker]

Uh, actually, historians, religious and secular, agree on this unamimously, and anyone who knows patristics knows this. It’s only a few fringe fundamentalists who make the claim that it is somehow altogether different. By the way, every Roman Catholic bishop or priest has a historical chart of succession, tracing them all the way back to the apostles. So, yeah, say what you want, but Protestants don’t have that, nor do their “ministers” have any more authority than John Christian living down the street.

Unanimous? Hardly. How about someone answering my history question – which has been asked numerous times and avoided each time: The Bible is the most verified and verifiable writing in the history of the world. Why should less verified tradition, written or oral, be given EQUAL weight, as the Catholic Church demands?

I’ll wait for an answer. And just FYI, “because the RCC is the only source of divine revelation” will not suffice. It’s a simple question with a simple answer. Because you refuse to answer it does not make it disappear.

 

[Krocker]

I know that this isn’t reason enough to change your mind, but here’s something else to consider. The oldest extant writing is from 348. Many writings have been lost over the centuries. It’s interesting to ponder why there was no outcry or flurry of writings to defend against the new “heresy” of Mary’s sinlessness. It’s stated matter of factly and nobody cries foul. That leads me to the conclusion that it was already an accepted belief. You may not reach the same conclusion, but it’s something to consider.

Interesting concept – the lack of something proves both its existence and that it was undisputed. Sorry, that doesn’t work.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Unanimous? Hardly. How about someone answering my history question – which has been asked numerous times and avoided each time: The Bible is the most verified and verifiable writing in the history of the world. Why should less verified tradition, written or oral, be given EQUAL weight, as the Catholic Church demands?

I’ll wait for an answer. And just FYI, “because the RCC is the only source of divine revelation” will not suffice. It’s a simple question with a simple answer. Because you refuse to answer it does not make it disappear.

Because Paul said so in 2 thess 2:15

also because the church lived by sacred Tradition for 3over 350 years before the Bible was canonized.

The first book of the NT wasn’t written until the late 40s ad which means they needed to live by Tradition before it was written, and even then no one had a copy of it except Paul.

The letters of the NT did not come together to be studied until 197 ad

what did every do before then? The went by the sacred Tradition of the One Church.

It took the Sacred Tradition of the Church to canonize the book they wrote(NT) and to canonize the OT of which there were 5 canons previous to 382.

The Church was long before the Bible was.

If you knew your history, I would not need to point these things out to you.

 

[Krocker]

Because Paul said so in 2 thess 2:15

also because the church lived by sacred Tradition for 3over 350 years before the Bible was canonized.

The first book of the NT wasn’t written until the late 40s ad which means they needed to live by Tradition before it was written, and even then no one had a copy of it except Paul.

The letters of the NT did not come together to be studied until 197 ad

what did every do before then? The went by the sacred Tradition of the One Church.

It took the Sacred Tradition of the Church to canonize the book they wrote(NT) and to canonize the OT of which there were 5 canons previous to 382.

The Church was long before the Bible was.

If you knew your history, I would not need to point these things out to you.

But this doesn’t answer my question. Why do you give the Immaculate Conception, a tradition-based doctrine, the same weight as the Bible? It cannot be verified historically to the same extent.

 

[RomanPL]

Sorry to get into the deep discussion here but I’m a little tired of accusations that the Church is so perfect. The Church is Holy and Apostolic and Universal - many cultures are included.
Holy - Jesus started the Church and promised something very clear - Holy Spirit will make sure that the Church will not be overcome.
Apostolic - If the Apostles didn’t get it right in the presence of Jesus, why do we expect that perfection from anybody after them? Did He pick wrong people on purpose or did they make wrong choices as we continue making?
Many cultures, experiences, expectation need to learn the will of God in various forms but UNITED. The Apostles were always united even when they had differences, tempers, emotional answers. We are not humble enough to place ourselves over the 2000 years of heroes before us. Just like the Apostles with their weakness and victories we need to take the same journey of growth - the Church is in the hands of people that are trying to become saints and hear that “welcome, well done, good job … you fed me when I was hungry, you visited me in prison, you clothed me…”