How do you know the Bible is the word of God

[AD70]

Because you are from a bible Church, you are especially welcome here.

Well thank you. I appreciate your hospitality on this forum. Though we may disagree, the goal is - at minimum - a clear understanding of what each other believes. A change of position as to what we believe, in the heart of either you or I may not take place for years beyond this conversation - but we are not without hope.

As to the bible, when I say incomplete, I refer to, for example, Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34, Ephesians 6:21-22 and many other verses which tell us that most things that God revealed are not written down. They simply are not in the bible. They could not be in the bible, as the entire world would not hold the books that would be written.

Who can disagree with that? Amen. That is exaclty what the apostle John told us. Unfortunately, I am not seeing the connection here. The way I see it, this fact in no way militates against the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

The main idea of the doctrine is not that the Scriptures are the only authority - but the only infallible authority. Sola Scriptura does not teach that the Scriptures are exhaustive in matters pertaining to life and faith - but they are sufficient for matters of life and faith - “so that the man of God may be complete, throroughly equipped for every good work.”

The goal of the Scriptures is not to provide the church with omniscience or perfect knowledge - but sufficient knowledge.

We teach that God has given us sufficient knowledge in Scripture for the church to judge all essential matters of life and faith. Where the Scriptures are silent therefore, the church must either be silent herself or at least recognize the vulnerability of her accuracy in such areas, see Prov. 30:5-6.

Now - I do not say that the Scriptures must speak explicitly on every matter for the church to speak on that matter with divine authority - but also, the* implicit *truth of the Bible is valid as well, when reached through process of logical deduction, and necessary consequence. Its when the church ventures out beyond the written word of God and its necessary inferences, that she immediately becomes vulnerable to contradiction, for she is thereby speaking apart from God.

Beyond the divinely-revealed and divinely-preserved truth of Scripture, the church has no certain and infallible ground whereupon to stand. Therefore her teachings on subjects not so revealed in the word of God are all subject to the highest scrutiny of biblical consistency and are not to be regarded as binding upon the consciences of men.

Sola Scriptura is a safeguard against all forms of ecclesiastical tyranny.

The apostle Paul wrote:

“This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God. I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, in order that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, so that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another” (1Cor. 4:1-6.)

 

[dzheremi]

It seems to me that we’re going to be stuck at an impasse regarding what it means to “add to” or “go beyond” what is written. Obviously this command cannot be forbidding the writing of other epistles or books nor the canonization of the same (an important point, as the canon developed for quite a long while after this epistle was written, so if it was an absolute prohibition then we wouldn’t have the Bible at all, at least not as we know it), and the reasoning given after the bolded portion (“so that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another”) seems to be talking of something other than the principle of “Sola Scriptura”, since obviously the many churches which believe in this doctrine are nonetheless at odds with each other on many important issues.

So we might wonder what good this principle has led to, if in protecting the individual from “ecclesiastical tyranny” (neat phrase) it instead produces infinite variations of individual tyranny. Yes, you are no longer beholden to a particular church’s view when you can just go and start your own if you disagree with the establishment, but then to what end? So that in the future others may become dissatisfied with you in turn and then split from you, on and on, ad infinitum? This seems like the exact situation that St. Paul had warned of in the passage you quoted, AD70.

 

[jmcrae]

I have started this thread so I can understand why people can not understand why mormons believe in more of God’s word than other mainstream Christians. And why others can not accept that there is more of God’s word. We are asked why we believe in these books. I ask how do you know that what you believe in is real or more correct than what I have. History is fine, but victors always write the histroy.

I know what is the Word of God because the Church that was established by Jesus Christ has the authority to tell me what it is. Pope Innocent I accepted the findings of the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome, and promulgated the 46-book Old Testament and 27-book New Testament to the whole Church, to be read out at Mass during the Liturgy of the Word.

The phrase “Word of God” also refers to the Person of Jesus Christ, who was the agency through whom God the Trinity created all that is seen and unseen, and by which He is saving the world from its sins.

 

[po18guy]

Unfortunately, I am not seeing the connection here. The way I see it, this fact in no way militates against the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

The doctrine of sola scriptura has men’s names on it. It traces directly to them and no one else. It goes back 495 years and the trail stops dead. It was not how Christ founded His Church - that is the biggest mark against it. Nothing against scripture at all - heaven forbid! - just that scripture is not how Christ chose to found His Church. That Church later produced the scriptures, but we must not throw out the baby with the bath water. The Church that wrote and canonized scripture cannot be separated from the scripture that she wrote. When this happens, you get division - thousands of disagreeing denominations.

The main idea of the doctrine is not that the Scriptures are the only authority - but the only infallible authority.

The only problem with this is that the bible does not say this. Ask yourself: what happened to the authority that said that scripture is inerrant? Did it just evaporate? If it ever existed, it still does. If it never existed, the bible cannot be trusted.

The goal of the Scriptures is not to provide the church with omniscience or perfect knowledge - but sufficient knowledge.

You have revealed the goal of the doctrine of sola scriptura, but not of the scriptures themselves. John preferred to speak face to face, so that the believer’s joy would be complete - not merely sufficient(2 John 1:12). Jesus came that we might have life in abundance - not that we would have sufficient life (John 10:10).

If there is God’s revealed truth outside of the bible - and the bible tells us there is - is it not also worth pursuing?

We teach that God has given us sufficient knowledge in Scripture for the church to judge all essential matters of life and faith. Where the Scriptures are silent therefore, the church must either be silent herself or at least recognize the vulnerability of her accuracy in such areas, see Prov. 30:5-6.

Can we apply Old Testament principles to the new? Can we put new wine in old skins? Jesus founded a Church, and gave it all authority on earth, including the guidance of the Holy Spirit and power over sin (Matthew 16:19, 18:18). The scriptures are a witness to this power, but they are not power in and of themselves. Hard for a bible Christian to accept.

Beyond the divinely-revealed and divinely-preserved truth of Scripture, the church has no certain and infallible ground whereupon to stand. Therefore her teachings on subjects not so revealed in the word of God are all subject to the highest scrutiny of biblical consistency and are not to be regarded as binding upon the consciences of men.

I know that you have learned this from others, but the bible tells us that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth - not some of the truth, but all of it. (1 Timothy 3:15) There is nothing in all of human behavior that the Church has not been given authority over. Nothing. “Whatever you bind…whatever you loose”

Sola Scriptura is a safeguard against all forms of ecclesiastical tyranny.

If so, it has also authorized eccleisstical chaos. Thousands of disagreeing denominations is the devil’s work, and they all use the exact same bible. What futher proof do we need that there must be an authority above the bible? The fact that many choose to disregard that authority is immaterial. Is Jesus an authority? Yes. Did men reject Him? Yes. Did that take away from His authority? No. So it is with Christ’s Church.

Circumcision. Why is it not needed? The scriptures that Paul spoke of said it was. The early converts taught that it was. Paul - even Paul(!) - was not sure, so he went to the Church (Acts 15). Once the Church spoke, the matter was done. Scripture was of no help in deciding this foundational issue. Remember that power of binding and loosing? Circumcision was loosed, even though it had been required from Abraham to Jesus. Jesus gave His Church power to dispense with the very circumcision that He Himself received (Luke 2:21).

Scripture may be one safeguard, but not all. Jesus said to take disputes to the Church as the final authority (Matthew 18:15-18). I believe His words.

The apostle Paul wrote:

Many things - that people outside of Church authority twisted via private interpretation even at that time. 2 Peter 3:16 All scripture needs authoritative interpretation. See Nehemiah 8:5-8 and Acts 8:26-35.

I want my faith to be complete. I want my Church to trace in an unbroken line to Christ. I want teachings that have not changed. I want men whose hands-on ordinations can be traced back to one of the twelve, or to Paul. I want a Church that can decide matters with authority, for all time. That is my only guarantee.

Jesus founded an apostolic Church, promising that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. The One True Church must be apostolic.

 

[po18guy]

The apostle Paul wrote: not to go beyond what is written, so that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another" (1Cor. 4:1-6.)

Careful here! By this standard, we must exclude even 2 Corinthians, because it was not yet written! In writing 2 Corinthians, do you believe that Paul was went beyond what was written in 1 Corinthians? Of course not!

We would also have to throw out Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, as well as Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1,2 and 3 John, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation, since none of them had yet been written. Not!

Taken in context, could Paul have meant something else?

Scripture must be authoritatively interpreted.

 

[jmcrae]

Po,

I put it through the Jive Translator…does this work for ya…

My. Slap mah fro!..my. Slap mah fro!..my. Slap mah fro!..my. Slap mah fro! Beloved… Such learned bein’s. Has reason become yo’ Lo’d. Tell me do ya’ honestly recon’ dat eida’ of ya’ know de mind uh our Heavenly Fader. Ah be baaad… You’s gots’ ax’ed drough reason and grown t’gots’ become whut? ah’ admire yo’ dedicashun t’searchin’ out trud and know dat ya’ are senio’ amongst yo’ peers, but fo’give me beloved t’whut end. Does not da darn same fate await ya’. You’s gots’ spent yo’ ya’d pursuin’ trud and sho’ nuffly ya’ gots’ found it and it gots’ta consumed who ya’ are. What it is, Mama! Tell me whut ya’ now gots’ become? How much trud gots’ta it snatch fo’ ya’ t’say enough… dis be sufficient fo’ me. What it is, Mama! ah’ find it ironic dat God gave da darn wealdy dude an abunboogy yet not da darn powa’ to enjoy it. Are ya’ likes unto dis man. ‘S coo’, bro. Does no one miss ya’? Do ya’ not even miss ya’? ENOUGH already. Slap mah fro! It be true dat God created dude downright and dat dude has sought out many devices. And ya’ are plum as guilty as ah’ and fo’ de same reason. ‘S coo’, bro. De day gots’ta mosey on down fo’ ya’ t’set aside vanity and opuh’te on faid alone o’ you is not yet convinced? ah’ speak not fo’ mah’self but fo’ ya’. Humbly ah’ ax’ ya’ t’now set reason aside and try t’walk ‘slusively by faid. Perhaps ya’ gots’ta find da darn peace dat gots’ta eluded ya’ fo’ so’s long. ah’ say dese wahtahmelluns t’ya’ not out uh pompous self-righteousness but out uh concern fo’ ya’. Dere be no end t’discernment unless ya’ end it and walk by faid. Den peace gots’ta come t’ya’ and joy as shoooit. ah’ believe dat yo’ homeys and family gots’ta finally be glad t’get ya’ back afta’ all uh dese years and trust me. What it is, Mama!.. You’s gots’ta be glad t’get back into de land uh de livin’. Amen

This is actually more readable than the original.

 

[jmcrae]

Amen. The word is the truth. And it both defines the church and dictates the church’s calling. The church is to be the “ground and pillar”, that which upholds the truth of scripture. Unfortunately there are too many churches who would rather preach up the church rather than the Bible.

The church’s calling is not only to preach the scriptures but to submit to them, obey them and serve them as God’s sufficient rule.

And yet it remains incontrovertible that Christ established a Church; He did not write a book.

It was the Church that created and “inscripturated” the New Testament, by means of various Councils and Papal decrees, until the canon of the New Testament was closed in 405 AD by Pope Innocent I.

 

[AD70]

Careful here! By this standard, we must exclude even 2 Corinthians, because it was not yet written! In writing 2 Corinthians, do you believe that Paul was went beyond what was written in 1 Corinthians? Of course not!

We would also have to throw out Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, as well as Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1,2 and 3 John, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation, since none of them had yet been written. Not!

Taken in context, could Paul have meant something else?

Scripture must be authoritatively interpreted.

Not so. The statement had perpetual force. If Paul ended up writing more Scripture, then the statement itself divinely extends to those writings as well. For the idea applies to the category of Scripture, not to a duration of time.

 

[AD70]

And yet it remains incontrovertible that Christ established a Church; He did not write a book.

It was the Church that created and “inscripturated” the New Testament, by means of various Councils and Papal decrees, until the canon of the New Testament was closed in 405 AD by Pope Innocent I.

I am familiar with the historical process. But the way I see it - in hind-sight of divine providence - the canon was actually closed when the last portion of Scripture was written, not when the church had finally recognized it to be so.

The church did not determine the extent of the canon - we simply* recognized *its extent.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;10025676:

Yes, that is what I believe. And my question is this:

If we do not agree on this point, does that make me apostate, and no longer welcome on this forum?

Ad,

Bless you my brother. We do not agree. It does not make you an apostate. You are welcome here. You are welcome to continue your Bible study since what you agreed to is not in the Bible. What is in the Bible is this…

14I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; 15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

When I asked you this…

Then are you saying that the Bible is the basis and foundation pertaining to matters of life and faith in truth?

it should have said …

Then are you saying that the Church is the basis and foundation pertaining to matters of life and faith in truth? This is what the Bible teaches.

And then you and I would have agreed as this is in the Bible that you and I revere!

 

[CopticChristian]

I am familiar with the historical process. But the way I see it - in hind-sight of divine providence - the canon was actually closed when the last portion of Scripture was written, not when the church had finally recognized it to be so.

The church did not determine the extent of the canon - *we simply recognized ***its extent.

Ad,

Just so we are on the same page, just so I can know who we are talking about…

who be we that recognized it’s extent…?

Names,
Dates…just some clarifying on the who we be…

 

[AD70]

I want my faith to be complete.

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

I want a Church that can decide matters with authority, for all time. That is my only guarantee.

That sounds pretty pious. But we must remember that the church can only “decide matters with authority” when she is in full submission to the Scriptures.

 

[AD70]

Just so we are on the same page, just so I can know who we are talking about… Names, Dates…just some clarifying on the who “we” be…

Do you take issue with my use of the term “we” when speaking of the early church?

Can you also give me details concerning these “oral” traditions that have been supposedly deposited into the church?

Can you list five of them, and demonstrate that they are all still in practice today?

 

[CopticChristian]

Do you take issue with my use of the term “we” when speaking of the early church?

Can you also give me details concerning these “oral” traditions that have been supposedly deposited into the church?

Can you list five of them, and demonstrate that they are all still in practice today?

1. The Canon of the Bible that includes all books, 73, Protestants removed 7 books and only have 66 books, defined by WE…with dates and times…removed by Protestant printing presses…
2. The Trinity not explicitly spoken of or defined in the Bible and later defined by the Church by virtue of Oral Tradition that is now written
3. Two Natures of Christ defined by the Church and subsequently written and believed by Protestant and Catholic
4. Baptism of Infants disputed by some Protestants but clearly defined and accepted by Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and some Protestants.
5. Theotokos deposited by Oral Tradition and declared written in contrast to a heresy that Jesus was not God/man, believed by Protestants, ie Jesus was truly God and truly man…by declaring that Mary was the God bearer, the humanity of Jesus is declared as well as the divinity…

is that enough…?

 

[jmcrae]

I am familiar with the historical process. But the way I see it - in hind-sight of divine providence - the canon was actually closed when the last portion of Scripture was written, not when the church had finally recognized it to be so.

The Bible is useless if it is not recognized to be the Bible. That the Church recognized it is due to divine guidance. That the Christian population accepted the Church’s decree is due to the fact that Jesus established the Church and gave it His authority to make these kinds of decisions, and the power (that is to say, the divine guidance) to do so without error - that is to say, infallibly.

But if the Church cannot teach infallibly, then we have no way of knowing that the Bible is true, since there is no way to independently verify the Church’s findings.

The church did not determine the extent of the canon - we simply* recognized *its extent.

… and used its divine authority to make that known to the whole world.

 

[po18guy]

Not so. The statement had perpetual force. If Paul ended up writing more Scripture, then the statement itself divinely extends to those writings as well. For the idea applies to the category of Scripture, not to a duration of time.

I have never heard of such a teaching. I will tell you up front that “divine extension” sounds like Mormon teaching. They use very similar terms.

By the way, what or who defines scripture?

 

[po18guy]

Can you list five of them, and demonstrate that they are all still in practice today?

These are written in existing scripture, yet I am guessing that you reject them. The 1.5 billion members of the 2,000 year old Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches have practiced these from the beginning, not only because of the scriptures, but because of the physical practices of the Apostles that were handed on to succeeding generations.

1. The Holy Eucharist
2. The Sacrament of Reconciliation/Penance
3. The Sacrament of Holy Orders
4. The sacrament of Anointing of the sick
5. The Sacrament of Confirmation

 

[po18guy]

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

Paul wrote “All scripture” and not “scripture is all” Huge difference. Just as Peter wrote (inerrantly), this is a very common twisting of Paul’s words that has occurred only since the 16th century. “Complete” refers to the man, not to the scriptures. The bible still tells us, inerrantly, that it is an incomplete record.

That sounds pretty pious. But we must remember that the church can only “decide matters with authority” when she is in full submission to the Scriptures.

In Acts 15, there were no NT scriptures! Even if Matthew had been written by then, it was silent on circumcision. All of the scriptures at that time said that circumcision was required. Paul listened to the Church over and above the scriptures. Now what?

 

[choliks]

I am from a Bible church. I hope that this does not disqualify me from this forum. I do disagree with some of your propositions, but if disagreement must mean disfellowship, then I will go away wondering what grace is in this place. With patience and prayer, I hope to gain clarity on these issues. I know what I currently believe. I will state what I believe. And I will see for myself if your catholic answers can persuade the heart.

AD,

You are very much welcome here. Disagreements are ok, but breaking the forum rules will disqualify you from this forum.

This is only true practically, but not true essentially.

When I speak of the Bible, I am not speaking of the leather and paper, nor the ink with which it is written. Rather, I am speaking of it’s essential contents. The propositions of Scripture are what I refer to when I say “the Bible.”

And when we speak of the Bible in this way, we understand that it is no mere inanimate object. Notice how the authors of Scripture refer to the life and dynamic nature of Scripture, using the profound literary device of PERSONIFICATION.

Indeed. The Bible is not a mere inanimate object, but…

**1) The Scripture speaks: **

“And again another scripture says, They shall look on him whom they pierced.” (Jn 19:37) see also Romans 9:17.

2) The Scripture foresees the future and preaches:

“And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In you shall all nations be blessed” (Gal. 3:8).

3) The Scripture draws conclusions:

“But the scripture has concluded all under sin, so that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe” (Gal.3:22)

4) The Scripture is able to make men wise, and correct them, and instruct them in righteousness. It is able to thoroughly equip a man for every good work:

“From a child you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: so that the man of God may be complete, throughly equipped for every good work.”(2 Tim. 3:15-16)

5) The Scripture lives, has power, peirces, divides, and discerns:

“For the word of God is alive and powerful and sharper than any twoedged sword, peircing 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” (Heb. 4:12).

… it seems you’re separating scripture from its author. Is it the word who’s speaking, foreseeing the future, drawing conclusions, making wise men, and living? Or is it the author?

Therefore when this literary device is applied to the Scriptures, we find that in the minds of the apostles, the Scriptures are equated with God himself, and therefore the authority of the Scriptures must be recognized as being equal with the authority of God himself.

Whoa. This is way far off from the minds of the apostles. One cannot equate the Scriptures with God. Truly, the Scriptures are inspired by God, but He cannot be equated with it. God can only be equated with Himself. Sure, the Bible contains things written about Him, but not all of Him (taking out 7 books from the original canon even compounds the matter) . The world cannot even contain Him, so why equate God with the scriptures? I think it’s really dangerous to do so. the Apostles wouldn’t even dream of teaching that. I would’ve agreed with you if you said that God is of the same essence with His Word, His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Do you know where this is leading you?

Here’s something to think about: if the authority of Scriptures must be recognized as being equal with the authority of God, then the devil could have had the upper hand over Jesus in the desert, when he quoted Scriptures (Matthew 4:6). Furthermore, how can the devil quote or use Scriptures if its Authority is the same as God’s? Surely a devil cannot use an authority more powerful than him.

When the Church canonized the Bible, her intention was for it to be a means for instructing the faithful. It was not meant to be an absolute rulebook for everything.

 

[choliks]

Here’s something to think about: if the authority of Scriptures must be recognized as being equal with the authority of God, then the devil could have had the upper hand over Jesus in the desert, when he quoted Scriptures (Matthew 4:6). Furthermore, how can the devil quote or use Scriptures if its Authority is the same as God’s? Surely a devil cannot use an authority more powerful than him.

I guess my point was that Jesus Christ was not bound by the Scriptures, because He is above and beyond them (read: not equal). I suppose this is one of the unwritten reasons why the Catholic and Orthodox Churches don’t subscribe to Sola Scriptura.