If the Bible is sufficient

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris_W
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chris_W

Guest
I understand that many Christian denominations profess a belief in Sola Scriptura ( a belief that the Bible is sufficient by itself for the instruction of the faithful).

I have a question about this; Why does Hank Hannagraph (“The Bible Answer Man”), just as an example, have a radio show?

Every show, people call in with their questions about how to understand the Bible, and he explains it to them as he understands it. If the Bible is totally self-sufficient, aren’t these teaching ministries completely unnecessary? It seems rather ironic to me.

Perhaps there is a rational reason for someone to have a Bible teaching ministry, while still adhering to Sola Scritpura, but I cannot imagine what that reason is.
 
Actually, sufficiency of Scripture is a Catholic belief, too. Sola Scriptura simply takes it too far. Basically, the difference is whether the Bible is actually sufficient, or just materially sufficient.

As I have seen it explained, it is basically the difference between having enough materials to build a house (bricks, wood, etc) and having an actual house. Catholics believe that Scripture is like the supplies, while Tradition is the mortar that holds everything together. Sola Scriptura makes the error of seeing the pile of bricks and saying it’s the same as a house.
 
Sadly, the vast majority of Protestants who subscribe to the Sola Scriptura doctrine do not realize that there wasn’t a Bible for 400 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Also, if sola scriptura is the correct doctrine, and that the Bible is self-sufficient and the Word of God, wouldn’t everyone get the same interpretation from it? What authority does Hank Hannagraph have to interpret the Bible? Who died and made him, or any Protestant preacher, the person to interpret the Bible?

The great thing is, Christ died, was buried, and rose from the dead and gave the Catholic Church that authority alone.
 
The most ironic title I’ve ever seen on a book is “How To Read The Bible For Yourself.” :confused:

Sooooo…We should be reading the Bible for ourself because it is perpescuitous (clear) for any real Christian to understand and totally sufficient for all we nned to know, BUT we need to buy this guys book to show us how? Riiight 👍
 
Andrew Larkoski:
Sadly, the vast majority of Protestants who subscribe to the Sola Scriptura doctrine do not realize that there wasn’t a Bible for 400 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection.
Click to expand...
I think this statement misrepresents the protestant view just a bit. Most protestants will agree that the word of God was passed orally for some time after Jesus’ death. Sola Scriptura is not to say that the Apostles and their successors didn’t preach. It is to say, however, that what they preached was the same as what got written in the Bible. And it is also to say that the things that are necessary for salvation is what was included in the Bible. They do believe that there were other things that were taught, but they don’t believe that they were “necessary” or “significant” for their salvation.

Dr. Colossus mentioned the material sufficiency of Scripture, which is what the RCC affirms: the Bible contains the necessary “material” for salvation. The RCC does not, however, affirm the “formal” sufficiency of Scripture. The RCC doesn’t believe that the material in the Bible is in the correct “form” for us to completely understand and interpret it correctly. But, this is what protestants believe (formal sufficiency of Scripture).

The thing is, as Chris W mentioned, that on some level protestants don’t really believe in the formal sufficiency of Scripture either. Radio talk shows, Bible studies…and Seminary schools. If the Holy Spirit can perfectly guide you in a formally sufficient Bible, then why do protestants need seminary schools to learn about Scripture? They say that the Bible is formally sufficient, but their actions say otherwise.
 
Of course the Bible is sufficient! God said that nothing lasts forever but his word. Everything we know abou the Christ and how we should live our Christian life is present in the Bible that was written by Saints through the Holy Spirit.

Also a comment for Andrew Larkoski, Jesus didn’t give authority to the “catholic” church. The church is the group of true believers that follow the word of God present in the Bible. Also a note for you, the first Church is not the roman catholic church. Please refer to your Bible to see the names of the first Church.

As mentioned in the Holy Bible, the man who add or delete a word from the word of God is cursed. So i say the Bible is sufficient and i don’t even dare to compare or complete the Bible by traditions and ideas created by human beigns.
Thank you.
 
40.png
homer:
Of course the Bible is sufficient! God said that nothing lasts forever but his word. Everything we know abou the Christ and how we should live our Christian life is present in the Bible that was written by Saints through the Holy Spirit.

Also a comment for Andrew Larkoski, Jesus didn’t give authority to the “catholic” church. The church is the group of true believers that follow the word of God present in the Bible. Also a note for you, the first Church is not the roman catholic church. Please refer to your Bible to see the names of the first Church.

As mentioned in the Holy Bible, the man who add or delete a word from the word of God is cursed. So i say the Bible is sufficient and i don’t even dare to compare or complete the Bible by traditions and ideas created by human beigns.
Thank you.
Click to expand...
1st of all, Sacred Tradition does not add or remove, compare or complete in that sense, to the Sacred Scripture. It is the magisterium that preserve and interptret the teachings of the Sacred Scripture correctly, guided by the “Spirit of Truth”

2nd of all, indeed the one and true Church of Christ wasn’t named the “Catholic Church” for until the Protestant Revolt in the 1500s there was only one church! The name “Roman Catholic”, sadly, had to be applied to distinguish this one and true church from other denominations out there who have separated from her.
Please refer to your Bible to see the names of the first Church.
Click to expand...
If you were referring to the seven churches mentioned in the book of Apocalypse, those names referred to the geographical juridiction of the churches, more like the Archdiocese of Perth, or sthg like that.

“To you is given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it…”
 
A bit of a misunderstanding about sola scriptora is going on… A philosophy text might have everything in it to understand logical positivism, but that does not mean that everyone will understand it.

Lutherans do not ignore other Christian writings or other books not included in the Bible. In fact we honor them but we do not hold them at par with scripture.

So how do we decide what is scripture and what is not…. We see which ones weigh as much as a duck, if they weigh as much as a duck they are not scripture.
 
40.png
homer:
As mentioned in the Holy Bible, the man who add or delete a word from the word of God is cursed. So i say the Bible is sufficient and i don’t even dare to compare or complete the Bible by traditions and ideas created by human beigns.
Thank you.
Click to expand...
You mean like Luther adding the word “alone” in Romans saying man is saved by “faith alone”? And, of course, James says man does NOT live by “faith alone.” (The only place in the Bible where the words “faith” and “alone” are together in the NT scriptures.) So how can you possibly rely on your own interpretation? Protestants want to accept Luther’s extra words and deny James’ words. In my mind, it just doesn’t compute. :ehh:
 
40.png
homer:
Of course the Bible is sufficient! God said that nothing lasts forever but his word. Everything we know abou the Christ and how we should live our Christian life is present in the Bible that was written by Saints through the Holy Spirit.

Also a comment for Andrew Larkoski, Jesus didn’t give authority to the “catholic” church. The church is the group of true believers that follow the word of God present in the Bible. Also a note for you, the first Church is not the roman catholic church. Please refer to your Bible to see the names of the first Church.

As mentioned in the Holy Bible, the man who add or delete a word from the word of God is cursed. So i say the Bible is sufficient and i don’t even dare to compare or complete the Bible by traditions and ideas created by human beigns.
Thank you.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church believes that God’s word is our only infallable source of information. The thing is that God didn’t pass His word to us ONLY in written form, he also passed His word to us orally. In the same way that we have to distinguish canonical from non-canonical books of the Bible, we must also distinguish canonical from non-canonical oral teachings (traditions).

In the Bible, Paul says to “Hold to ALL of the traditions I have passed on to you either by epistle OR by word of mouth.” Paul doesn’t say to only hold to written tradition. He specifically say to hold to ALL traditions, either written OR oral. The fact that Paul uses the word “OR” instead of “AND” implies that there were things that he said to his followers orally that he didn’t pass to them in written form.

Believe it or not, but there is absolutely no inspired table of contents in your Bible. How do you know which books belong in your Bible and which don’t? How do you know that the Didache shouldn’t be in your Bible…or the epistles of Clement of Rome or Ignatius of Antioch…the Apocolypse of Peter or the Shepard of Hermes? The thing is that YOU DON’T KNOW!!! Trying to discern inspired texts from non-inspired is just as difficult as discerning inspired traditions from non-inspired.

Christ did give authority to His Church. What is the pillar and bulwark of Truth?. If you say that it is the Bible, you’re wrong! Scripture says that it is the Church that is the pillar and bulwark of Truth! Christ also said that, “Upon THIS ROCK (Peter) I will build my Church.” Peter’s Church IS The Roman Catholic Church and therefore, the RCC is the pillar and bulwark of Truth!..the only source we have for infallably discerning canonical from non-canonical Scriptures and Tradition.
 
The Bible Answer Man does deal with the Bible and biblical questions, but it also deals with the excesses and strange interpretations among the various Protestant sects and various pseudo-Christian cults out there. Hank has his radio show primarily for that purpose. He also has guests on who most Catholics/Orthodox would have no problems with (William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, etc). Its great, when people check out “the historic Christian faith” that Hank keeps talking about on his show, they’ll see how Catholic that historic faith is. :o

Hank inherited the show from Walter Martin (d. 1989) who was America’s counter-cult expert for 30 years, and author of The Kingdom of the Cults.

Phil P
 
40.png
funkyhorn:
The Catholic Church believes that God’s word is our only infallable source of information. The thing is that God didn’t pass His word to us ONLY in written form, he also passed His word to us orally. In the same way that we have to distinguish canonical from non-canonical books of the Bible, we must also distinguish canonical from non-canonical oral teachings (traditions).

In the Bible, Paul says to “Hold to ALL of the traditions I have passed on to you either by epistle OR by word of mouth.” Paul doesn’t say to only hold to written tradition. He specifically say to hold to ALL traditions, either written OR oral. The fact that Paul uses the word “OR” instead of “AND” implies that there were things that he said to his followers orally that he didn’t pass to them in written form.

Believe it or not, but there is absolutely no inspired table of contents in your Bible. How do you know which books belong in your Bible and which don’t? How do you know that the Didache shouldn’t be in your Bible…or the epistles of Clement of Rome or Ignatius of Antioch…the Apocolypse of Peter or the Shepard of Hermes? The thing is that YOU DON’T KNOW!!! Trying to discern inspired texts from non-inspired is just as difficult as discerning inspired traditions from non-inspired.

Christ did give authority to His Church. What is the pillar and bulwark of Truth?. If you say that it is the Bible, you’re wrong! Scripture says that it is the Church that is the pillar and bulwark of Truth! Christ also said that, “Upon THIS ROCK (Peter) I will build my Church.” Peter’s Church IS The Roman Catholic Church and therefore, the RCC is the pillar and bulwark of Truth!..the only source we have for infallably discerning canonical from non-canonical Scriptures and Tradition.
Click to expand...
:amen: I agree 100%. Jesus said, “Upon this Rock I will build my church” He did not say “churches”. Nor did He say, “don’t worry about a church just love Me. Read the bible and the Holy Spirit will guide you” He SAID he wanted to build a church on this rock (Peter). It is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth. Apparently, the existence of a physical church for us to have in order to follow Him was pretty important to Jesus.

Rock on funkyhorn. :tiphat:
 
40.png
homer:
Also a comment for Andrew Larkoski, Jesus didn’t give authority to the “catholic” church. The church is the group of true believers that follow the word of God present in the Bible. Also a note for you, the first Church is not the roman catholic church. Please refer to your Bible to see the names of the first Church.
Click to expand...
Maybe I do not understand. In my Bible, I see some listed as the church of (insert city here). I do not see baptist, lutherin, methodist, etc. True, I do not see Roman Catholic, but I did not expect to. Catholic is a discription from the Greek for universal. Roman is another adjective to describe the particular rite described within the universal church. The official name for the Church is THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. This is not to be confused with any other set of Christian beleivers, but ment to convey the fact that we are the ONLY church founded by Jesus HIMSELF. That is why in most of my posts, I say The CHurch to refer to the Catholic Chruch and Catholics are its members
 
A note to Little Mary about (Upon THIS ROCK (Peter) I will build my Church).

The word Peter means a little stone, and Jesus said that upon this rock he will buil his Church.

This means that we are only small stones and upon the rock that is Jesus Christ the church will be built and not upon any human being.
 
40.png
homer:
A note to Little Mary about (Upon THIS ROCK (Peter) I will build my Church).

The word Peter means a little stone, and Jesus said that upon this rock he will buil his Church.

This means that we are only small stones and upon the rock that is Jesus Christ the church will be built and not upon any human being.
Click to expand...
I come across this claim so many times I can’t be bothered to explain it at length again,

here:

catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
 
We know we are expected to live by every word of God (Matt 4, 4). We also heard Jesus explain to the Apolstes that He was speaking in parables. Jesus said He had more to tell them. He told them the day would come when He would speak plainly, but that they could not bear it now (they had nt yet received the Holy Spirit). Then, after His resurrection, he spent 40 days teaching them (Acts 1, 3) yet we have no record of what He said or did.

For those who contend the Bible contains all of God’s revelation, condier this. The taching recorded in the Gospels is to a large extent parables. The rest of the New Testament is dialogue from the Apostles to peoples they had already converted through oral teaching.

If you eliminate Apostolic Tradition from your body of evidence, you are eliminating what was quite possibly the most thorough and plain teachings of Jesus (40 days worth), are you not?

Could any Christian believe that if we gave a copy of the Bible to a person seeking God, that this person would necessarilky arrive at the same religion as the person who gave the Bible (without any outside explanation)? I think not. I believe Hank knows this.

I don’t mean to pick on Hank, but merely to pont out that Sola Scriptura does not seem to be a viable means of determining truth, as is evidenced by those who profess the belief in it.
 
Chris W:
If the Bible is totally self-sufficient, aren’t these teaching ministries completely unnecessary? It seems rather ironic to me.
Click to expand...
This is because Sola Scriptura cannot be praticed. If it could be practiced, there would be no need for concordances, translators, interpreters, ministries, etc.

The most common error I’ve encountered is that protestants confuse their interpretation of the scriptures with the scriptures they’re interpreting.

They’ll say “The Bible says…” when in reality it should say “my interpretation of the Bible says…”
 
40.png
BobCatholic:
This is because Sola Scriptura cannot be praticed. If it could be practiced, there would be no need for concordances, translators, interpreters, ministries, etc.

The most common error I’ve encountered is that protestants confuse their interpretation of the scriptures with the scriptures they’re interpreting.

They’ll say “The Bible says…” when in reality it should say “my interpretation of the Bible says…”
Click to expand...
I do not understand what is being said here. Sola Scriptora means that we use the scripture as a measure against all things and that the writings of say… Martin Luther are not at par with the Scripture. When Martin Luther wrote things that were contradictory to scripture his views were wrong. He is a fallible human being.

Sola Scriptora does not mean that anyone who wants to can understand it, or that those who claim to understand it cannot make errors in their judgment. That is why we need and utilize concordances, translators, priests, etc.

I have read many Bibles like the Good News Bible where I have felt that the translation was not correct.
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
I do not understand what is being said here. Sola Scriptora means that we use the scripture as a measure against all things and that the writings of say� Martin Luther are not at par with the Scripture. When Martin Luther wrote things that were contradictory to scripture his views were wrong. He is a fallible human being.
Click to expand...
Who determined that Martin Luther wrote things contradictory to scripture and how? What are the correct steps to “measure against scripture”? Who makes the judgment that the measurement is not up to snuff?
Sola Scriptora does not mean that anyone who wants to can understand it, or that those who claim to understand it cannot make errors in their judgment.
Click to expand...
My statement is that people say that the scriptures are their ONLY/HIGHEST/ONLY INFALLIBLE authority (depending on how SS is defined in their denomination), but in reality it is their interpretation of scripture which is their only/highest/only infallible authority.

A good example. There’s one verse in Luke which says that Joseph knew Mary not UNTIL she gave birth to Jesus, and they use that to say Mary and Joseph had relations afterward, solely by interpreting what the word UNTIL means. No such interpretation is anywhere in scripture, but people will still say “The Bible says Mary and Joseph had other children…” even though those words are nowhere in scripture.
 
40.png
BobCatholic:
Who determined that Martin Luther wrote things contradictory to scripture and how? What are the correct steps to “measure against scripture”? Who makes the judgment that the measurement is not up to snuff?
Click to expand...
Not one singular person that is for sure. Luther called for the burning down of Synagogues and the demand that Rabbis stop preaching under pain of death. Many people stepped back and concluded that this was contradictory to the teachings of Jesus.

I am not saying that people will always be correct in their conclusions when using the Scripture. We are all fallible, and we will all make errors. Even the Apostles disagreed from time to time.

I wish that there was a person that had the ability to say, “No this is what the scripture means, or that this is against the scripture” – but, since I do not believe in the infallibility of the Pope – who am I to turn to other than the words of Christ? I will make many mistakes and I will always ask the opinion of the more educated person.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top