Is the bible all we need 1

  • Thread starter Thread starter eakswim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

eakswim

Guest
I am in conversation with a baptist friend and they posed the following and I am not sure how to answer all these questions?
can someone help?
**Yes, we believe that the Bible is all anyone needs, and it is the final authority for us and our church. I trust that this will answer the questions that you have regarding our stand upon the Bible, and why we make such strong statements about the Bible. **

FIRST, 2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17 TEACHES THAT THE SCRIPTURE IS SUFFICIENT FOR FAITH AND PRACTICE.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS.”

The Scripture alone is given by inspiration of God and is able to make the man of God perfect. Obviously nothing else is needed, then, beyond the Scripture.

Catholic tradition is not Holy Scripture, is not therefore inspired by God, and is not therefore necessary to make the man of God perfect. I say this on the authority of 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

This one passage alone refutes Rome’s teaching that its tradition is equal to Scripture. Only Scripture can be equal to Scripture, because only Holy Scripture is inspired of God.

Paul contrasts the word of men with the word of God.

“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when YE RECEIVED THE WORD OF GOD WHICH YE HEARD OF US, YE RECEIVED IT NOT AS THE WORD OF MEN, BUT AS IT IS IN TRUTH, THE WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

We must continue to make this crucial distinction today. If a teaching is not the word of God, it is the word of men. Rome’s traditions are not the Word of God. Rome does not even claim that its traditions are the Word of God. Thus, they are the word of men and are not to be followed. The Word of God, the Scripture, is all the believer needs, because it is able to make him perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

**SECOND, WE KNOW THE BIBLE IS THE COMPLETE WORD OF GOD BECAUSE WE ARE TOLD THE FAITH WAS ONCE DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS. **

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for THE FAITH WHICH WAS ONCE DELIVERED UNTO THE SAINTS” (Jude 3).

“The faith” refers to the body of New Testament truth delivered by the apostles through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The term “once delivered” tells us that this body of truth was given during one particular period of time and was completed. It refers to the New Testament Scriptures that was completed during the days of the apostles.

Jude 3 singularly refutes the idea that the Christian faith has been progressively given through the Roman Catholic Church.
 
First (and pardon me for using caps but really this is just so ridiculous I have no choice 🙂 ): JUDE WAS WRITTEN SOMETIME AROUND 67 AD… THIS MEANS IT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE 1, 2, and 3 JOHN, REVELATION, PROBABLY 2 PETER and POSSIBLY HEBREWS.

If they wish to use this to say it was “once and for all delievered” then they have to say that none of these books are a part of the deposit of faith.

When Jude writes of the “Faith,” he is literally referring to the faith of Christianity. You know how today we might use the word Christianity interchangably with “the faith?” We may say, “You must be ready to die for the faith,” or, “I want to join the faith.” That’s how Jude is using it.

More to come…
 
eakswim said:
“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when YE RECEIVED THE WORD OF GOD WHICH YE HEARD OF US, YE RECEIVED IT NOT AS THE WORD OF MEN, BUT AS IT IS IN TRUTH, THE WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

We must continue to make this crucial distinction today. If a teaching is not the word of God, it is the word of men. Rome’s traditions are not the Word of God.
Click to expand...

The Word of God is Christ Jesus. When Paul wrote Thessalonians, there was no such thing as the New Testament. I sizeable hunk of it – including all four Gospels – had yet to be written.
40.png
eakswim:
“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for THE FAITH WHICH WAS ONCE DELIVERED UNTO THE SAINTS” (Jude 3).

“The faith” refers to the body of New Testament truth delivered by the apostles through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

No, “the faith” does not refer to the “body of the New Testament.” Again, when Jude was written, there was no such thing as the New Testament. For example, 2 Peter borrows from Jude, which means 2 Peter is a later document.

“The faith” refers to the Apostolic Tradition, of which the Catholic Church is the surest protector.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
1 Thessolonians 2:13

Read this carefully. It is the Word of God that they received, but NOT in the form of Scriptures. It came right out of the Apostle’s mouths. They did NOT spread the gospel with paper, as most people couldn’t even read and the gospels weren’t even written yet!

The point of this is Paul thanking God that when he SPOKE the Word, the people accepted it as the Word of God and didn’t doubt him. They didn’t accuse him of lying. They accepted that it was really God’s Word, even though it was just from a man. That is what Paul is talking about.

This very same Word that was passed down orally from Paul to the Thessolonians was passed down orally through the Church Tradition.

Remember that when we say Tradition with a capital T, we mean ONLY those things which were passed down directly from the Apostles.
 
2 Tim 3:15-17 teaches the Scriptures are inspired, and that they “fully equip” the believer, but literally it is talking about the Old Testament, the Scriptures that Timothy has known from childhood (verse 15). This is not the New Testament which at that time didn’t exist. Verse 16 teaches the OT is inspired and “profitable” for teaching, etc.

1 Thess 2:13 is actually a verse that supports the Catholic position that both the oral and written teachings of the apostles were the inspired “Word of God.” This verse is not talking about the New Testament, but the Word of God orally given and passed on by the apostles.

Jude 3 doesn’t mention anything about the New Testament, it simply says “the Faith” was once delivered unto the saints.

None of these verses teach the Bible is the only infallible, or the only inspired Word of God. What these verses teach is that the apostolic teaching, whether it was handed down in writing or orally (2 Thess 2:15), is the inspired Word of God, and should be followed and passed on. Plus there is the issue of the correct and orthodox interpretation of the Scriptures. Who has the authority to interpret and define Christian doctrine?

Ask them to give you the verse that teaches the 66-book biblical canon is the only inspired, only infallible rule of faith for the Church (which is what they believe). Then hit them with this paragraph from James White:

“…the doctrine [of sola scriptura] speaks of a rule of faith that exists. What do I mean by this? …You will never find anyone saying, ‘During times of enscripturation – that is, when new revelation was being given – sola scriptura was operational.’ Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is ‘sufficient.’ It is a canard to point to times of revelation and say, ‘See, sola scriptura doesn’t work there!’ Of course it doesn’t. Who said it did?” (from White’s 1997 article on the Bereans and Sola Scriptura)

According to White, sola scriptura did not exist in the original Church, was not a valid concept, was not practiced by Jesus, His apostles, or their successors.

Phil P
 
Protestants do tend to counter this criticism by pointing to 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (NIV) However, this passage does not say anything about Scripture alone being sufficient or allowed. This passage makes clear 2 points. First, it tells us that all Scripture is inspired by God. This is very important, and all Christians agree on this. Second, it tells us that all Scripture is beneficial, and that we can learn from all Scripture. This is also very important. What it does not say is that Scripture is the only thing that is beneficial. Protestants tend to point to the ending: “so that man may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” However, all this speaks of is that Scripture will help men to be thoroughly equipped, or complete. It says that Scripture can finish the job, it does not say that Scripture must begin the job too. If a proponent of Sola Scriptura wishes to use this passage as proof, however, he has a problem, because Ephesians 4:11-13 says something very similar in reference to pastors:

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. (NIV)

Read this verse carefully. It tells us that pastors and teachers will prepare God’s people for service, build them up, bring them to unity in the faith (which means they will all believe the same thing, an important point which will be touched on later), and attain the fullness of Christ. This passage tells us that pastors and teachers will lead us to the fullness of Christ! That would seem to mean that we do not even need Scripture! Of course no Christian, Catholic or Protestant, would interpret this passage to mean that we do not need Scripture. However, if one is to read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 so straightforwardly, then one must also read Ephesians 4:11-13 the same way. Why do Protestants not do this? It is because of the way they interpret the Scriptures.
Code: 
        Interpretation is a very large part of any reading of the Bible, and it is the key for the arriving at every Protestant doctrine.  A fancy way to talk about interpreting Scripture is to say that a person is exegeting them, or performing exegesis.  Protestants take great pride in exegesis, which makes sense because it is very important if every belief has to be taken straight from the often confusing words of the Bible.  Protestants also like to say that Catholics are bad at exegesis, because that way it is easy to dismiss Catholics when they use Bible passages to prove their beliefs.  In other words, Protestants say that their interpretations are right, and the Catholics interpretations are wrong.  But how do they know which interpretations are right and which ones are wrong?

        Protestants know which passages are right and which are wrong because the founders of their church told them which passages are right.  This is against Scripture.  2 Peter 1:20 tells us that Scripture is NOT a matter of private interpretation.  2 Peter 3:16 tells us that the untaught twist the Scripture TO THEIR OWN **DESTRUCTION**.
(from my comprehensive work on Sola Scriptura:lazerliek42.tripod.com/sola.htm
 
The Bible as we know it wasn’t around until 397. This includes 73 books. The 66 books version came a little over 1200 years later. The Church was around before and during all of this.
 
God did give the Bible to equip the saints, (1 Tim 3:16-17) but he does this through*** the authorities established within the Church to protect us against every wind of doctrine and error. The teaching authority of the Church and that the Bible are not two different things. Protestants make them out to be only because they disgree witht the authorities of the Catholic Church in favor of their personal opinion (those winds of doctrine).
“And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, ** for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, ** to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ…” (Eph 4:11-15)
Click to expand...
 
40.png
adstrinity:
The Bible as we know it wasn’t around until 397. This includes 73 books. The 66 books version came a little over 1200 years later. The Church was around before and during all of this.
Click to expand...
The Ephesian church Didnt have the letter written to them until 397? :eek:

The God breathed scripture WAS scripture when the ink was still wet.

EAKSWIM is correct. “The faith” (or apostolic tradition) refers to the body of New Testament truth (first proclaimed and then written) delivered by the apostles through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The term “once delivered” tells us that this body of truth was given during one particular period of time and was completed. It refers to the New Testament Scriptures that was completed during the days of the apostles.

There is no big T tradition not found outside of scripture!

The assumption that revelation given to the apostles was broken up into written revelation and unrelated oral tradition equal to God Breathed written revelation is totally unfounded!

2Th 2:15 - So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. The inference that there a 2 different seperate revelations is an awkward imposition on the text that is not there!

Do reporters witnessing a fire, report on live TV (oral) something different than what gets written in the newspaper the day after?
 
40.png
kaycee:
The Ephesian church Didnt have the letter written to them until 397? :eek:
QUOTE]

What are you on about? Did I say that? No. I said that the Bible wasn’t around until 397. The Bible wasn’t around for the first 400 years of Christianity. The Church was. It cannot be the sole rule if it didn’t exist. 🙂
Click to expand...
 
40.png
kaycee:
The Ephesian church Didnt have the letter written to them until 397? :eek:

The God breathed scripture WAS scripture when the ink was still wet.

EAKSWIM is correct. “The faith” (or apostolic tradition) refers to the body of New Testament truth (first proclaimed and then written) delivered by the apostles through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The term “once delivered” tells us that this body of truth was given during one particular period of time and was completed. It refers to the New Testament Scriptures that was completed during the days of the apostles.

There is no big T tradition not found outside of scripture!

The assumption that revelation given to the apostles was broken up into written revelation and unrelated oral tradition equal to God Breathed written revelation is totally unfounded!

2Th 2:15 - So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. The inference that there a 2 different seperate revelations is an awkward imposition on the text that is not there!

Do reporters witnessing a fire, report on live TV (oral) something different than what gets written in the newspaper the day after?
Click to expand...
Don’t ya just love straw men. Where did anyone say that Oral Tradition was completely separate from scripture. By the way you contradict yourself.

“There is no big T tradition not found outside of scripture!”

The double negative woud be found inside of scripture.

The idea about Catholic (T) Tradition is that it puts the proper interprutation to scripture unlike the thousands of Protestant contradictions. Tell me, does a mormon who thinks there is a verse in Corinthians that teaches baptizing the dead have the Word of God? He has the scriptures but does he have the WOG. No it is obvious to all but you that if you do not have the proper understanding you do not have the WOG. Therefore the WOG = Scripture + (T)Tradition. Once again we do not claim scripture is unrelated and separate from scripture. They go hand in hand. Do you need me to quote the catechism or will you graciously retract the nonsense you have posted above.
 
40.png
adstrinity:
40.png
kaycee:
The Ephesian church Didnt have the letter written to them until 397? :eek:
QUOTE]

What are you on about? Did I say that? No. I said that the Bible wasn’t around until 397. The Bible wasn’t around for the first 400 years of Christianity. The Church was. It cannot be the sole rule if it didn’t exist. 🙂
Click to expand...
The Body of Faith once delievered, WAS the sole authority used by the Church. What else would they use? What other body of Faith existed other than what was delivered to the Apostles?

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for THE FAITH WHICH WAS ONCE DELIVERED UNTO THE SAINTS” (Jude 3).

There is no further revelation within the church after John died.
To claim an unknown unwritten tradition that is equal to God Breathed scripture is just a cover for the inovations that happend much later in the church
Click to expand...
 
40.png
kaycee:
40.png
adstrinity:
The Body of Faith once delievered, WAS the sole authority used by the Church. What else would they use? What other body of Faith existed other than what was delivered to the Apostles?

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for THE FAITH WHICH WAS ONCE DELIVERED UNTO THE SAINTS” (Jude 3).

There is no further revelation within the church after John died.
To claim an unknown unwritten tradition that is equal to God Breathed scripture is just a cover for the inovations that happend much later in the church
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are confusing “revelation” with “interpretation.” No Catholic EVER claims a separate ongoing revelation or an “unknown, unwritten tradition that is equal to God breathed Scripture.”

Actually, if you want an unknown, unwritten tradition, talk to the Trail of Blood people.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
kaycee:
40.png
adstrinity:
There is no further revelation within the church after John died.
To claim an unknown unwritten tradition that is equal to God Breathed scripture is just a cover for the inovations that happend much later in the church
Click to expand...
More straw men by one who obviously has no clue about Catholic theology. We agree that all public revelation ceased with the Apostles. That there is nothing new to be revealed regarding the plan of salvation. Why you guys have is men running around claiming that there personal interprutations of scripture are equal to God’s breathed scripture. “The Bible says all ya gotta have is faith alone to be saved”. Of couse we know that the New Testament uses the word faith 273 times and not once, oh wait excuse me once, does it use it with the word alone. Of course that once is James 2:24. 🙂
Click to expand...
 
There is and was no public revelation after John died. The Church believes that there is some private revelation to some people, but private revelation is never, ever, and cannot ever be taught as truth or doctrine.

Revelation did cease with the last of the Apostles. What you are missing is that the things the Church teaches are things which were taught by the Apostles. Just because something didn’t end up in Paul’s letters it doesn’t mean he didn’t teach it. If you read his letters, you’ll see all sorts of commands to follow what he taught orally when he was there, but the letters never say what this teaching was. The letters were only meant to answer concerns of the various churches. He only wrote about the problems that these churches were having, not everything he taught.

Jude isn’t referring to the Scriptures which were given once and for all, but the faith. When I say, “I am going to join the faith,” or “Paul died for the faith,” I’m using the word faith in the same way Jude did in his epistle.

If Jude WAS referring to the Scriptures, there’s a major problem, because 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Revelation, and possibly Hebrews were all written after Jude!
 
40.png
kaycee:
40.png
adstrinity:
The Body of Faith once delievered, WAS the sole authority used by the Church. What else would they use? What other body of Faith existed other than what was delivered to the Apostles?

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for THE FAITH WHICH WAS ONCE DELIVERED UNTO THE SAINTS” (Jude 3).

There is no further revelation within the church after John died.
To claim an unknown unwritten tradition that is equal to God Breathed scripture is just a cover for the inovations that happend much later in the church
Click to expand...
“Body of Faith” does not equal scripture. "Body of Faith = Deposit of Faith, from which come both Tradition and Scripture. Tradition and Scripture are not at odds with each other - when properly understood. Catholics know the deposit of faith is properly understood because the Holy Spirit is present as the teaching authority (Magesterium) of the Church.

Tradition is part of the deposit of faith delivered once for all, which ceased with the death of the last Apostle. But that does not meand that doctrine did not continue to develop - e.g. refinement of the understanding of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, Marian doctrines, etc. These developments in doctrine are not new revelation but refinements in our understanding of that Deposit of Faith which includes Tradition and Scripture.

To deny the truth of Sacred Tradition is to deny a portion of the Body of Faith. That is why Catholics believe that Bible-only christians do not hold to the fullness of the Christian faith that is only complete in the Catholic Church. We have much in common, and Bible-only christians have much truth, just not the whole truth because they fail to recognize the Deposit of Faith is more than the Bible.
Click to expand...
 
earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html Go here to see what I mean. There were DOZENS of books floating around, some of them forgeries, it wasn’t settled until 397 which of these were not only legit, but, inspired. The Church had to decide, The Church was around, reading the Old Testament scriptures (all of them, with the 7 books the Protestants deleted, but, that’s another thread, so, nevermind.)

Look, the point is the Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith when it didn’t exist. This site really opened my eyes as to how difficult the Church had it.

Good luck with your conversation!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top