How sufficient is the Scripture?

[Pug]

I think a person could encounter only one book of the bible, read it, turn to God, and be saved. So I guess it really boils down to what you mean by sufficient. Presumably there are people who were born before it was written and they ended up in heaven.

Sufficient that all the people who are going to end up in heaven will be saved by reading it? Sufficient to copy itself and propagate itself through history? Sufficient to keep the preachers in line and preaching the “correct” message? Sufficient in that it died on the cross and rose?

I think God has a plan, and he will indeed accomplish his ends. His plans include people, books, institutions, nations, etc. The bible is part of his plans. It is not the entirety of his plans. But you probably don’t mean that level of sufficiency.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

Hey Lisa.

I agree that the Bible does not have any salvific power, but its message does. Do you think that the message of the Bible alone is sufficient for salvation? Or do you think that it is lacking in something?

First question posed is yes if proper interpertation is taken into account.Well staying with Scripture there is oral Tradition that is taught in Scripture that if you seperate one from the other it is incomplete.It to me goes back to what has been given to you by God and how you respond.If the message of Scripture falls on deaf ears then for that person it didn’t help.

 

[serendipity]

nohself:

For instance, the Assumption of Mary into heaven was a belief that arose completely out of the sphere of scripture. It arose by word of mouth from the fact that Mary’s tomb was empty after she died. Something else apparently happened too…I can’t remember.

Jamie

It is also based partly on an interpretation of the book of Revelation. It is not true that there was absolutely nothing in the Bible about it; it does not have root only outside of scripture. Yes, the link may be tenous, but it is there.

 

[serendipity]

nohself:

To say that tradition was somehow an intermediary between the age of Christ and the collection of the books into the canon of the Bible is incorrect.

Jamie

When there was not written word to pass around, the stories that were later comiled into written word were passed around by mouth through tradition.Tradition in not an intermediary between Christ’s life and between the accepted version of the Bible. I never said that. I did say that Tradition was a source of the message before the message was written and everyone had a readable and agreeable version.

 

[st_felicity]

Can you take the Holy Spirit out of the Trinity? How about The Father? Or maybe leave in those two and take out Jesus? NO! To try do so, destroys the Truth of the Trinity.

The content of what is Divine Revelation is the same. Divine Revelation is how God has revealed Himself to the world and he has done so in a “trinity” of Scripture, Tradition, and the teaching of the Magisterium (those bishops in union with the Pope). Just as it would be wrong (and a misunderstanding of the Trinity) to love or worship Jesus more than (or seperate from) God the Father or the Holy Spirit, it is wrong and a misunderstanding of Divine Revelation to hold the Bible above Tradition or the teaching office of the Church.

 

[st_felicity]

To the question of whether the Bible itself is sufficient for salvation…only God can decide. God knows the “light” that each of us is given–what we are capable of knowing. He knows us better than we know ourselves. Severely disabled persons, perhaps those born with only part of their brain, may not ever be able to comprehend God in the “intellectual sense”, but they are no less children of God. He would not abandon them simply because they don’t “know” him. We are all individuals, and God knows what light he has given us. If one receives the Truth, is capable of understanding it, and then refuses to believe it because, perhaps, as John 6 says, “It is a hard teaching”–God will hold that person’s soul accountable for choosing himself over God just as Adam and Eve were held accountable for choosing their desire over God.

For some, I’m sure God will decide that what they learned from Scripture alone is sufficient, because that is all they could “know”.

All Christendom, ultimately, is part of the first Christian Church, the Church that Christ Himself founded (the Catholic Church) and therefore–there really is no Salvation outside of the Church–but there are some non-Catholics who will be saved–because they have known God as fully as they could with the light He provided them. He is a Merciful God.

Anyone that is on this forum, and genuinely tries to discern the Truth of the Catholic Faith would do well to consider what light God has given him–and what He is calling for that individual to know.

 

[st_felicity]

It is as important to know why we DON’T believe something, as it is to know why we DO believe something–perhaps it is even more important.

 

[BibleReader]

When one says, “Scripture is sufficient,” one’s focus is off.

No matter what, Christ went to a lot of trouble finding, teaching, and commission Church administrators – Apostles.

And they evangelized after His death.

Christ clearly believed that, whether or not Scripture was objectively sufficient, it would not be *subjectively *sufficient.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

You are bringing up the material sufficiency vs. the partim-partim (part this, part that) question. As far as I know, the Church has not officially ruled on this, however it seems that material sufficiency is the more popular at the moment. It is more of an academic excercise like Thomism vs. Molinism which I won’t pretend to act like I understand, save to say that one can hold either without contradicting Church teaching. I have encountered a few non-Catholics who think they have us by the horns on this issue, but it seems like alot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Scott

 

[Mickey]

Lisa4Catholics:

First question posed is yes if proper interpertation is taken into account.Well staying with Scripture there is oral Tradition that is taught in Scripture that if you seperate one from the other it is incomplete.It to me goes back to what has been given to you by God and how you respond.If the message of Scripture falls on deaf ears then for that person it didn’t help.

Absolutely lisa! The message of Scripture is sufficient for salvation if interpreted in the context of Sacred Tradition.

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

Hey all. I was wondering if Catholics believe if the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation. Help me out here.

I feel this is a trick question. If a Catholic were to say that Scripture contains all this necessary for salvation then a Protestant can come back and reply, “Ok, you have said that Scripture contains all that is necessary for salvation, correct? Now let’s get down to the issue of proper exegesis…So on and so forth…”

If a Catholic answers in the affirmative the issue turns away from Church teaching regarding both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture to the issue of Protestant exegesis of Scripture alone.

Peace

 

[puzzleannie]

michaelp:

Hey all. I was wondering if Catholics believe if the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation. Help me out here.

NO, Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, Second Person of the blessed Trinity contains all and IS all that is necessary for our salvation. God gave us His Son, to die for our sins, to rise from the dead and redeem us. He did not send us a book with coupons to hand in for redemption. the Book is the written record, divinely revealed and written by chosen human authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, of the entire history of God’s covenant with mankind, and is the Word of God, but is not the entire Word, the Logos who became Man, flesh and blood, so we could humanly and physically participate in His action for the sake of our salvation.

 

[ahimsaman72]

dennisknapp:

I feel this is a trick question. If a Catholic were to say that Scripture contains all this necessary for salvation then a Protestant can come back and reply, “Ok, you have said that Scripture contains all that is necessary for salvation, correct? Now let’s get down to the issue of proper exegesis…So on and so forth…”

If a Catholic answers in the affirmative the issue turns away from Church teaching regarding both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture to the issue of Protestant exegesis of Scripture alone.

Peace

It’s Aristotles logic of non-contradiction at its best. It’s either - or. It can’t be both sufficient and non-sufficient at the same time and in the same sense. Wouldn’t you agree?

Peace…

 

[Salmon]

michaelp:

Is there any official teaching concerning this or is it open to interpretation?

All of scripture is open to personal interpretation as long as that interpretation does not contradict what the Church has infallibly defined.

For those of you who say that there are essential elements that are not contained in Scripure that are necessary for salvation, what are some examples?

Is it essential for salvation that we know the gospels are divinely inspired? The gospels themselves make no such claim.

It is the Church that teaches that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are divinely inspired. The same applies to all the books of the New Testament with the exception of Revelation.

On the other hand, the Book of Mormon makes the claim of divine authorship, as does the Koran. The point is that making the claim is not an indication of the truth. The Church guides us in this matter.

Peace in Christ…Salmon

 

[dennisknapp]

ahimsaman72:

It’s Aristotles logic of non-contradiction at its best. It’s either - or. It can’t be both sufficient and non-sufficient at the same time and in the same sense. Wouldn’t you agree?

Peace…

I would agree that it cannot be sufficient and non-sufficient at the same time and in the same sense.

Peace

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

I feel this is a trick question. If a Catholic were to say that Scripture contains all this necessary for salvation then a Protestant can come back and reply, “Ok, you have said that Scripture contains all that is necessary for salvation, correct? Now let’s get down to the issue of proper exegesis…So on and so forth…”

If a Catholic answers in the affirmative the issue turns away from Church teaching regarding both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture to the issue of Protestant exegesis of Scripture alone.

Peace

Hey Dennis,

Never thought of it that way. It may be true . . . but we will have time for this one later. I will stick that in my back pocket to discuss the implications of this later! You are just on the defensive when you see my name

Really, Dennis, I have just seen much disagreement about this among Catholics. It seems to be pretty important. I have seen a thread where a Protestant says that the Scripture is sufficient for salvation and seen many Catholics jump on him. Then I see Catholic scholars say that the Scripture has material sufficiency, meaning that all that is necessary for salvation is contained in the Scripture, but not all that is part of the faith. I think that Hahn (sp?) believes in the material sufficency. Protestants believe in the formal sufficency, meaning that Scripture is all that is necessary for matters of faith and practice.

Don’t worry, I am not waiting to drop the hammer once there is sufficient dialogue.

It is interesting that on such an important matter there is such disagreement. Do you know if the Catholic Church as made anything official about this?

Good to hear from you my friend.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Salmon:

All of scripture is open to personal interpretation as long as that interpretation does not contradict what the Church has infallibly defined.

Is it essential for salvation that we know the gospels are divinely inspired? The gospels themselves make no such claim.

It is the Church that teaches that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are divinely inspired. The same applies to all the books of the New Testament with the exception of Revelation.

On the other hand, the Book of Mormon makes the claim of divine authorship, as does the Koran. The point is that making the claim is not an indication of the truth. The Church guides us in this matter.

Peace in Christ…Salmon

So, for one to be saved, one has to believe that all the Scripture is inspired? I am not sure that I agree since many people in the first centuries did not know about ALL the Scripture. They may have only had one Gospel and just believed its message to be historically accurate.

Anyway, I will grant you this for the sake of your arguement and my understanding. What you are saying is that the only thing that Scripture does not contain that is essential for salvation is the divine list of inspired books?

Much appreciated.

 

[Salmon]

michaelp:

So, for one to be saved, one has to believe that all the Scripture is inspired?

That may ring true to an adherent of sola scriptura. As a Catholic, however, I can depend upon the Church to provide sure guidance through the Magisterium.

michaelp:

I am not sure that I agree since many people in the first centuries did not know about ALL the Scripture.

Valid point noted.

michaelp:

They may have only had one Gospel and just believed its message to be historically accurate.

Also a valid point.

michaelp:

Anyway, I will grant you this for the sake of your arguement and my understanding. What you are saying is that the only thing that Scripture does not contain that is essential for salvation is the divine list of inspired books?

Invalid point. Examples were requested. One was supplied. Nothing was posted to indicate that this was the only thing.

We both agree that scripture was not essential for salvation for Christians of the first few centuries. Perhaps we should ask, “Why not?” Is it possibly because the Holy Spirit provided assurances of God’s will in this matter that no longer are so prominent or publicly dramatic?

I maintain only that faith in the divine authorship of the scriptures can help us attain the promises of Christ. To regard them as the musings of fanatics 20 centuries ago could lead to an uncertainty that could threaten that salvation.

Peace in Christ…Salmon

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

Hey Dennis,

Never thought of it that way. It may be true . . . but we will have time for this one later. I will stick that in my back pocket to discuss the implications of this later! You are just on the defensive when you see my name

Really, Dennis, I have just seen much disagreement about this among Catholics. It seems to be pretty important. I have seen a thread where a Protestant says that the Scripture is sufficient for salvation and seen many Catholics jump on him. Then I see Catholic scholars say that the Scripture has material sufficiency, meaning that all that is necessary for salvation is contained in the Scripture, but not all that is part of the faith. I think that Hahn (sp?) believes in the material sufficency. Protestants believe in the formal sufficency, meaning that Scripture is all that is necessary for matters of faith and practice.

Don’t worry, I am not waiting to drop the hammer once there is sufficient dialogue.

It is interesting that on such an important matter there is such disagreement. Do you know if the Catholic Church as made anything official about this?

Good to hear from you my friend.

Michael

I just don’t want you to jump from material sufficiency to formal sufficiency claiming that one, ie. material sufficiency infers the other, ie. formal sufficiency.

I think this is what some Catholics on this forum are trying to avoid.

Peace

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

I just don’t want you to jump from material sufficiency to formal sufficiency claiming that one, ie. material sufficiency infers the other, ie. formal sufficiency.

I think this is what some Catholics on this forum are trying to avoid.

Peace

I do see what you are saying. For Catholics, salvation is impossible to separate from sanctification (Protestants will make a logical separation between justification and sanctification–salvation, technically speaking, is the entire process). Sanctification is being made perfect. So for you to say that Scripture contains all that is necessary for salvation (material sufficiency), you are in essence saying that Scripture contains everything that is necessary for the Christian life (sanctification).

Or, you could just take the option that Scripture contains everything necessary for salvation but the Church must interpret it. But then you have greatly underminded your belief about the assumption of Mary, since it is not found anywhere in Scripture (explicit or implicit).

Or you could say that Scripture does not contain all that is necessary for salvation, Tradition much suppliment that which is lacking (or vice-versa). Then, Tradition is not simply an expression of the regula fidei (accepted “rule of faith”) contained in Scripture, but may contain other elements that are essential to the Christian faith and salvation. This is what many Catholics here seem to believe.

But it seems that most here would believe that Scripture contains all that is necessary for the salvation (and sanctification). Hence, material sufficiency.

I am sorry, I am kinda thinking out load here as I work through this.

Thoughts?

Michael