How sufficient is the Scripture?

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

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

I think you hit on an interesting point here. Salvation is understood differently in a Catholic context than in a Protestant one. And I would disagree with the “logical” separation Protestants make regarding justification and sanctification. No one held that view until fairly recently, but that is another debate.

But I would also say that for a Protestant salvation is by faith alone, through Christ alone. For the Protestant Scripture contains what is soley known about Christ and salvation, but having personal failth in Christ is what grants you this salvation.

So, for the Protestant it is sufficient in what it contains, ie.knowledge pertaining to Christ. It is not sufficient in and of itself, but in what it contains.

I would say that it in not sufficient because it does not contain all the Word of God. For me this is contained both in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, ie. oral tradition and written tradition. And thus, contains what is necessary for salvation=justification/sanctification.

Peace

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

Thanks Jamie,

I do understand all of this very well. My question is not whether or not Scripture contains everything, but whether it contains everything sufficient for salavtion. In other words, are there essential issues, teaching, or practices that Scripture does not mention that are necessary for salvation. Or, does the Scripture contain all that is essential for salvation? If it does not, what is left out that Scripture does not teach that is essential for salvation?

Has the Catholic Church made any official declarations concerning the material sufficiency of Scripture? The reason I ask is because there does not seem to be a concensus on this forum about it, so I am a little confused.

Michael

Hi Michael! Hope all is well with you…

I guess I’m gonna be the first “stickler” to step up and say that the question you’re asking is a little vague and possibly unanswerable!

Firstly, as you are well aware, we are saved by Grace through faith. Independent of Grace we are not saved, and the Bible doesn’t communicate Grace. So technically, regardless of what information is contained in the bible, it is insufficient as a means to salvation.

Secondly, and more to the point, no one has the privelege of knowing who is excluded from Heaven and what the basis of that exclusion was and whether a full knowledge of that basis could have been derived from the Bible. We simply do not know. The Catholic Church does teach that people can be saved independent of Biblical knowledge.

Thirdly, with respect to “containing information” the bible is very weak. It actually contains ink and paper. Go read one written in arabic and you’ll see what I mean! A mind is required to extract the “information” that is contained and that always REQUIRES interpretation because language is an imperfect means of communication. In addition to not being particularly focused on providing lucid, unambiguous information it relies on the reader to interpret almost any concept you would care to discuss from it.

Additionally, it would seem that Jesus grants salvation even to “infants” and small children who certainly wouldn’t have much information to operate with. Is it implied that somehow we can “hinder” children from heaven - or is that not what Jesus meant when he said “do not hinder them”? We don’t really know do we? And why not? Because the bible isn’t particularly clear even on this basic issue.

All that being said, I believe the bible does contain all the information necessary for salvation, but that the means of knowing what that information actually is is best provided by a divinely inspired interpreter.

What do I know?,

Phil

 

[Philthy]

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 definitely disagree. It can be sufficient for one and not for another - simply a logical possibility as a function of the recipient’s intelligence/comprehension. In addition, we haven’t even begun to discuss the material sufficiency vs the practical sufficiency…
In the end, you will see that the original question requires a lot of “parameter definition” to respond to it intelligently. Even then, no one truly knows the answer.

Phil

 

[Tom]

Scripture not only states clearly that “not all is written here”, but by quoting and referencing non Scriptural (Apocryphal) works it indicates that “Tradition” as well as other sources are to be used. See Jude for an example, he refers to and quotes from two Apocryphal books, the book of Enoch and Moses.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Philthy:

I definitely disagree. It can be sufficient for one and not for another - simply a logical possibility as a function of the recipient’s intelligence/comprehension. In addition, we haven’t even begun to discuss the material sufficiency vs the practical sufficiency…
In the end, you will see that the original question requires a lot of “parameter definition” to respond to it intelligently. Even then, no one truly knows the answer.

Phil

But I thought all logical and rational arguments were based on the three laws of logic - one of which is the law of non-contradiction. An apple can’t be an apple and not an apple at the same time and in the same sense.

It either exists or doesn’t exist. Or, as I have posited in the past - is it possible that some religious experiences and concepts are not bound by this kind of logic?

Is everything just a logical and rational reality and devoid of spirit?
Just wondering. Sorry, this is going outside of the topic of the thread.

Peace…

 

[Philthy]

ahimsaman72:

But I thought all logical and rational arguments were based on the three laws of logic - one of which is the law of non-contradiction. An apple can’t be an apple and not an apple at the same time and in the same sense.

It either exists or doesn’t exist. Or, as I have posited in the past - is it possible that some religious experiences and concepts are not bound by this kind of logic?

Is everything just a logical and rational reality and devoid of spirit?
Just wondering. Sorry, this is going outside of the topic of the thread.

Peace…

I agree with the Aristotelian philosophical tool you are seeking to employ, however the problem lies in the question we are asking. We have not reduced all the “variables” out - and that makes Aristotles criteria inapplicable. An existential dilemma such as, “Can an apple be an apple and not an apple at the same time and in the same sense?” is not equivalent to “Does the bible contain all the information sufficient for salvation?” in the truest sense. One problem with the bible question is that we it’s unclear on two counts: 1)Whether or not the bible actually contains enough information for salvation and
2) Assuming it does, is that information accessible to everyone who reads it so that they can use it properly?

So there are ambiguities with respect to the original phrasing of the question. This means we can’t communicate clearly in attempting to answer it without making assumptions which may or may not fall within the intent of MichaelP 's original question.

Pretzel logic,

Phil

 

[TobyLue]

Just a thought. Might not be true or incorrect but just something to think about.
“Can an apple be an apple and not an apple at the same time”

Get an apple, slice it into eight pieces. Is it still an apple and not an apple at the same time? One piece is not an apple but part of an apple but its still apple none the less. That piece does not turn into a banana.

Just a thought. Might not even make sense…

 

[michaelp]

TobyLue:

Just a thought. Might not be true or incorrect but just something to think about.
“Can an apple be an apple and not an apple at the same time”

Get an apple, slice it into eight pieces. Is it still an apple and not an apple at the same time? One piece is not an apple but part of an apple but its still apple none the less. That piece does not turn into a banana.

Just a thought. Might not even make sense…

I actually have apple-banana juice in my refrig. I don’t know if that helps or if it affects the law of non-contradiction.

Michael

 

[ahimsaman72]

Philthy:

I agree with the Aristotelian philosophical tool you are seeking to employ, however the problem lies in the question we are asking. We have not reduced all the “variables” out - and that makes Aristotles criteria inapplicable. An existential dilemma such as, “Can an apple be an apple and not an apple at the same time and in the same sense?” is not equivalent to “Does the bible contain all the information sufficient for salvation?” in the truest sense. One problem with the bible question is that we it’s unclear on two counts: 1)Whether or not the bible actually contains enough information for salvation and
2) Assuming it does, is that information accessible to everyone who reads it so that they can use it properly?

So there are ambiguities with respect to the original phrasing of the question. This means we can’t communicate clearly in attempting to answer it without making assumptions which may or may not fall within the intent of MichaelP 's original question.

Pretzel logic,

Phil

Ahhh…

Not everything is so cut and dry, is it?

Yes, dear Phil, I see your points exactly.

The sufficiency of Scripture is a subject brought up by a banned protestant a while back that I found interesting. It’s both simple and complex at the same time. We could be simple and use verses such as “Whoever has the Son has life, whoever does not have the Son shall not see life”. So, it is simple.

However, what does “having the Son” mean exactly? That is the complexity of the issue. We can only use words and phrases such as “Whoever has the Son…” to point to reality - it is not the reality itself. It is a finger pointing to the moon. I suggest we make salvation more complex than it needs to be.

One could possibly spend years on the one verse above breaking it down and bringing to light its many aspects in regards to salvation, the personhood of Christ, etc. But, we could also take the statement for what it is - believe it in its simplest form and not attach ourselves to it.

One verse would be enough for my wee little brain to spend an eternity on. Salvation is wholly of God. I would even go as far to say that one word from Scripture is sufficient for the Christian faith. I would posit that the word - Christ - is enough. If I had one word to share with others to lead them to faith in Christ - I would give them the word - Christ.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

TobyLue:

Just a thought. Might not be true or incorrect but just something to think about.
“Can an apple be an apple and not an apple at the same time”

Get an apple, slice it into eight pieces. Is it still an apple and not an apple at the same time? One piece is not an apple but part of an apple but its still apple none the less. That piece does not turn into a banana.

Just a thought. Might not even make sense…

The law states …“at the same time and in the same sense”. So, if you wanted to get specific you could say, “a whole apple cannot be a whole apple and not a whole apple at the same time and in the same sense.”

That make sense?

It has to fulfill both time and sense to be true.

dennisknapp has taught me well

 

[ahimsaman72]

michaelp:

I actually have apple-banana juice in my refrig. I don’t know if that helps or if it affects the law of non-contradiction.

Michael

Sorry Michael, I’ve taken your good thread and reduced it to talk of apples being apples and not apples at the same time . I’ll try to keep my posts on course for you .

Being a sola scripturist - I happen to like your line of thinking!

Either the Scripture is enough in and of itself to achieve God’s results or it isn’t. It can’t be both. It is simply God’s method for bringing people to Him. It isn’t the end itself - it is the means to an end. I would even say that it doesn’t take Scripture itself to “save” anybody.

God can employ whatever means He sees fit to bring people to know and understand Him. He spoke to the OT prophets and faithful men such as Noah, Moses and Abraham without a priesthood, intermediary and Scripture. Those men knew God without these tools.

If He can do it without these tools - we are kidding ourselves about our own efforts to bring about God’s salvation. Just my uneducated meandering two cents worth of opinion mixed with a little bit of truth.

Peace…

 

[st_felicity]

I’m one of the 2 who posted “None of the above” on the poll question specifically because I do not believe any of the options “sufficiently” accounted for the reality of Divine Revalation as I outlined in my earlier post. You ain’t got the “WHOLE APPLE” there! smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/12/12_4_39.gif

 

[st_felicity]

CCC 95:
“It is clear therefore that , in the supremely wise arrangement of God, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magesterium of the Church are so connected and associated that** one of them cannot stand without the others. **Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

(my emphasis)

 

[jimmy]

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?

The message of the bible is not lacking in anything, but the teachings of the Church are not founded on the bible. The bible can do a good job of showing a person how to become more Christ-like.

 

[Church_Militant]

michaelp:

Thanks Jamie,

I do understand all of this very well. My question is not whether or not Scripture contains everything, but whether it contains everything sufficient for salavtion. In other words, are there essential issues, teaching, or practices that Scripture does not mention that are necessary for salvation. Or, does the Scripture contain all that is essential for salvation? If it does not, what is left out that Scripture does not teach that is essential for salvation?

Has the Catholic Church made any official declarations concerning the material sufficiency of Scripture? The reason I ask is because there does not seem to be a concensus on this forum about it, so I am a little confused.

Michael

Mp,
Here’s a statement from the CCC that may help a little. (Or maybe not )

1153 A sacramental celebration is a meeting of God’s children with their Father, in Christ and the Holy Spirit; this meeting takes the form of a dialogue, through actions and words. Admittedly, the symbolic actions are already a language, but the Word of God and the response of faith have to accompany and give life to them, so that the seed of the Kingdom can bear its fruit in good soil. the liturgical actions signify what the Word of God expresses: both his free initiative and his people’s response of faith.

1154 The liturgy of the Word is an integral part of sacramental celebrations. To nourish the faith of believers, the signs which accompany the Word of God should be emphasized: the book of the Word (a lectionary or a book of the Gospels), its veneration (procession, incense, candles), the place of its proclamation (lectern or ambo), its audible and intelligible reading, the minister’s homily which extends its proclamation, and the responses of the assembly (acclamations, meditation psalms, litanies, and profession of faith).

1155 The liturgical word and action are inseparable both insofar as they are signs and instruction and insofar as they accomplish what they signify. When the Holy Spirit awakens faith, he not only gives an understanding of the Word of God, but through the sacraments also makes present the “wonders” of God which it proclaims. the Spirit makes present and communicates the Father’s work, fulfilled by the beloved Son.

Pax vobiscum,

 

[Church_Militant]

BTW… If the Bible as we have it today is essential for man to come to know God then the early church should not have survived since it took several centuries for the scriptures to come together as we have them today.

Also, if it was singularly necessary then all those who could not read or afford to hire someone to copy it all out for them would be lost as well. Which would include great numbers of folks in foreign countries where literacy is very low…

The fact is that the Word of God has been preached for centuries and the faith was and is handed on orally even to this day. I think of those Christians who have been oppressed and not had Bibles for many many years and yet their faith survives without it.

Certainly, we need and enjoy the Bible, but you would have to admit that without someone who can authoritatively interpret what is correct Christian doctrine from that Bible (Which needs a good knowlege of the Living Tradition of the Church, since the church preceded and authored the Bible, not the other way round.)we would get pretty much just what we have today. Forty gajillion different opinions about what it means. It’s plain from the NT that Jesus says He will found His church… He does not say that he will found a book and 1st Timothy 3:15 clearly states that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The Bible is very good for many things, but it nowhere says that it is all sufficient for salvation or even for us to come to know God. I know this…that with or without the Bible, my own faith would survive and even flourish. I could make it…I wouldn’t like it and would desperately miss my Bible, but I’d be fine…especially if I could still hang out with other Catholics.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[michaelp]

Church Militant:

BTW… If the Bible as we have it today is essential for man to come to know God then the early church should not have survived since it took several centuries for the scriptures to come together as we have them today.

Also, if it was singularly necessary then all those who could not read or afford to hire someone to copy it all out for them would be lost as well. Which would include great numbers of folks in foreign countries where literacy is very low…

The fact is that the Word of God has been preached for centuries and the faith was and is handed on orally even to this day. I think of those Christians who have been oppressed and not had Bibles for many many years and yet their faith survives without it.

Certainly, we need and enjoy the Bible, but you would have to admit that without someone who can authoritatively interpret what is correct Christian doctrine from that Bible (Which needs a good knowlege of the Living Tradition of the Church, since the church preceded and authored the Bible, not the other way round.)we would get pretty much just what we have today. Forty gajillion different opinions about what it means. It’s plain from the NT that Jesus says He will found His church… He does not say that he will found a book and 1st Timothy 3:15 clearly states that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The Bible is very good for many things, but it nowhere says that it is all sufficient for salvation or even for us to come to know God. I know this…that with or without the Bible, my own faith would survive and even flourish. I could make it…I wouldn’t like it and would desperately miss my Bible, but I’d be fine…especially if I could still hang out with other Catholics.
Pax vobiscum,

Thanks Millitant,

I agree with you. Here is how I see it. The Bible itself is a collection of words on paper. Its message it what matters. That is how the early Chuch had at least decent doctrine, because they has the summary of the biblical message in the regula fidei (“rule of faith”) and the Old Testament message. Being close to the Apostles, they could have had more reliable info concerning that which Scripture contained, even if they did not have access to all of it. Although they did have access to most of it by mid second century (Gospels, Acts, and Pauline courpus).

I don’t know about you, but Isaiah, Psalms, Romans, and John alone would keep the average Church busy for fifty years. In total, they had access to 95% of the entire Scripture (Old and New). But the words and letters on a page don’t really matter. They had access to the message of the Bible through the teachings that were being carried on. These teaching were a summary of the Biblical message called in the early Church the regula fidei.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

michaelp:

Thanks Millitant,

I agree with you. Here is how I see it. The Bible itself is a collection of words on paper. Its message it what matters. That is how the early Chuch had at least decent doctrine, because they has the summary of the biblical message in the regula fidei (“rule of faith”) and the Old Testament message. Being close to the Apostles, they could have had more reliable info concerning that which Scripture contained, even if they did not have access to all of it. Although they did have access to most of it by mid second century (Gospels, Acts, and Pauline courpus).

I don’t know about you, but Isaiah, Psalms, Romans, and John alone would keep the average Church busy for fifty years. In total, they had access to 95% of the entire Scripture (Old and New). But the words and letters on a page don’t really matter. They had access to the message of the Bible through the teachings that were being carried on. These teaching were a summary of the Biblical message called in the early Church the regula fidei.

Michael

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

Really, Dennis, I have just seen much disagreement about this among Catholics.

Non seq. The question is not about how many Catholics agree on whether Scripture is sufficient for salvation. It is, however, about how many Bishops agree on this point.

michaelp:

It seems to be pretty important.

As the question refers to salvation and where and how one may find the way to salvation: yes it is important.

michaelp:

I have seen a thread where a Protestant says that the Scripture is sufficient for salvation and seen many Catholics jump on him.

Many catholics bring baggage to these discussions. Myself for instance: months of being ‘jumped on’ by Protestants claiming that I am not saved and in fact that the Catholic Church is responsible for anti-Christian teaching. So, yes, sometimes these discussions get a bit more rough than rigorous. At times, we need to find ways to decompress and to find areas on which we can agree and in which we can live peacefully.

michaelp:

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.

The focus is faulty. The question is not whether the idea of Scriptural sufficiencey is true. It is whether this idea is relevant. I believe that this idea is not relevant. Furthermore, I believe that this idea is problematic and brings with it the baggage of illogic and error.

If, for example, Scripture is invested with salvific sufficiency, then certain obstacles to salvation (for some Christians) instantly arise:

1. Were those Christians who lived in the pre-Bible era not saved?
2. If said Christians were saved, then did the Bible replace or enlarge Oral Teaching? Or merely become a means to facilitate (oral) dialogue in an increasingly expanding awareness of world community?
3. Even after the Bible was created, were those Christians who were illiterate not saved? Are those Christians who are illiterate not saved?

My responses:

1. I don’t know if those Christians who lived in the pre-Bible era were saved. That is between God and those people. However, I think it is unreasonable to decide that they definitely could not have been saved on the basis that they could not read the Bible (because the Bible did not exist then). So what provided the possibility of being saved if the Bible did not exist then? Agreement with the oral teaching of the Church concerning salvation. This agreement taking the form of baptism and fidelity to the teaching of the Church, such baptism itself being of water, blood, or desire.

2 and 3) If the Bible did in fact replace or enlarge Oral Teaching, then this automatically creates a two-tiered, elitist mechanism for salvation. To wit: does one criteria for salvation become literacy? Or wierder still: are those who are literate more saved than those who are not? Remember that, until very recent times, over 90% of the Church not only were illiterate but had no means to become literate. Therefore the notion of literacy as a criteria for salvation is unreasonable. Salvation is witnessed to, attested to, by means of the Oral Teaching and community of the Church. Let us consider for a moment the absurd premise of the Bible replacing or enlarging Oral Teaching as the means to salvation: the understanding of the Bible always takes place in the arena of oral communication and community. At times it may seem like someone is reading Scripture alone in a jail cell or in the middle of the desert. The understanding of that person, however, is inescapably driven by his or her experiences (History) among other people. The question then becomes not whether or not community forms one’s understanding but which community is a reliable source of that understanding.

So, whether or not Scripture seems to be on its face sufficient for salvation is irrelevant. Because, regardless of what Scripture actually attempts to communicate, the interpretation and understanding of Scripture depends on the influences of the community in which one finds oneself. The community which Jesus chose as a vehicle for interpretation and understanding all experience including our experience of the Bible was: the Catholic Church. Then, now, and tomorrow. This community and the influence of this community extends to all folk btw: tu es Petris.

michaelp:

It is interesting that on such an important matter there is such disagreement.

It is the very soul of community, dialogue, and truth to have diversity of opinion as regards starting points. One can bear in mind, however, that only one road has God as its destination point. That road is the Catholic Church and its arena of influence.

 

[DianJo]

The topic of Tradition and Scripture is always misinterpreted by non-catholics. I happened on a website that gives an explanation or better understanding of this: tinyurl.com/2ffy8 from the Jewish stand point.

It gives the Jewish understanding or explanation of their using both the written and spoken Word of God. I think the explanation is very good and puts things in a little better perspective although Catholics don’t go to the “extreme” that the Jews do - Catholic (Christian) Traditions are founded in the Jewish faith, after all.

It’s not a matter of whether Scripture is sufficient by itself for salvation or not; and it’s not a matter of whether there are things taught by Tradition that are not in Scripture that are necessary for salvation. Scripture and Tradition cannot be separated. They are of equal value - one explains the other. Non-catholics see it as an either or situation and you cannot think of it in that way. There is nothing in Tradition that is not taught in Scripture - explicitly or implicitly. I think this point is explained well on the website I cited. Go see.