Is the bible all we need 1

[kaycee]

Kay Cee:

First of all, since you admit there is no inspired list that constitutes the canon, why do you keep asking me for a canon of Tradition?

Because the RC church claims to have an infallible canon of scripture, but no infallible canon of Tradition?

Secondly, scripture is a lot more than letters. It is the gospels. It is Acts. It is Revelations. And there are other writings out there, like the gospel of Thomas, and the letters of Clement. How do you know the letter to the Hebrews is scripture but the letters of Clement are not? How do you know the gospel of Matthew is scripture, but the gospel of Thomas is not? **By what criterea do you know what is scripture and what is not? Where does scripture cover what is scripture and what is not? **

The early church guided by the Holy Spirit recognized the God Breathed Scripture. I believe the church about the year 200 had the most of the New testament except 2 small letters of John, 2 Pet, Jude, possible Revelation, i believe.

 

[E.E.N.S]

kaycee:

The early church guided by the Holy Spirit recognized the God Breathed Scripture.

Precisely!

 

[E.E.N.S]

The holy ecumenical and general Council of Trent…] has always this purpose in mind that in the Church errors be removed and the purity of the Gospel be preserved. The Gospel was promised of old through the prophets in the Sacred Scriptures; Our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, first promulgated it from his own lips; he in turn ordered that it be preached through the apostles to all creatures as the source of all savings truth and norms of conduct. The Council clearly perceives that this truth and rule are contained in the written books and unwritten traditions which have come down to us, having been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself or from the apostles by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and have been transmitted as it were from hand to hand. Following, then, the example of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with the same sense of loyalty and reverence all the books of the Old and New Testament-for the one God is the author of both-together with all the traditions concerning faith and practice, as coming from the mouth of Christ or being inspired by the Holy Spirit and preserved in continuous succession in the Catholic Church.

 

[kaycee]

Kay Cee:

But Jesus still refers to something not mentioned in the Old Testament, that is, not in the scripture of His time. It doesn’t matter how many times He does this–the fact is that He does this. Since you are going by scripture alone, where does scripture say that its usage is figurative?

The way it is used in the sentence, and it is never mentioned again. The rest of the time the leaders are known as pharisees, sadducees, High priest, ect… never “seat of Moses”

Then you must agree that the one Body of Faith was added to, since more scripture was added later.

Scripture that was recognized later, did not “add” any new basic doctrine. Its nice to read about future events in Revelation, but there is no new doctrine there.

Forgive me, but I see you reading into the text doctrine that is foreign to the original meaning, like trying to make 2 Tim 3:16 mean that we should go by scripture alone. By the way, where does scripture define the one Body of Faith as the basics of the Faith at the time 2 Tim 3:16 was written?

hmmmm, I thought i was just trying to say that the principle that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” I dont think this verse is limited to only the Scripture up to that time, but for Scripture throughout all time.

Isn’t one thing necessary for salvation to know what is scripture and what is not?

Certainly not. All you really need is the Gospel! “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” Is this scripture not true?

The closest thing you will find is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I can’t show you a canon because one doesn’t exist. Now, before you get too excited, there is a reason for that. Tradition has to cover things that did not exist at the time scripture was written. Is it okay to clone people or not? Scripture is silent. But Tradition tells us that our beliefs about human dignity cover this issue.

Sounds like the CCC would have to be God Breathed. correct? If big T is on par with the scriptures and Big T is found in the CCC, what other conclusion is there? Actually since no one knows all of what Big T includes only portions of the CCC should be God Breathed. There is no further revelation today, no more Big T. The scripture is totally relevent for todays dillema’s

 

[Lazerlike42]

The way it is used in the sentence, and it is never mentioned again. The rest of the time the leaders are known as pharisees, sadducees, High priest, ect… never “seat of Moses”

Do you mean to say that if something is only mentioned once in the Gospel we should ignore it? Do you really disrespect the Word of God this way?

Certainly not. All you really need is the Gospel! “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” Is this scripture not true?

James 2:24 - “So you see then that man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.”

Romans 2:6-8 - “Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath”

Mat 19:17-19 - “And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

2Th 2:15 - “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

Are these scriptures not true?

 

[Kay_Cee]

kaycee:

The early church guided by the Holy Spirit recognized the God Breathed Scripture. I believe the church about the year 200 had the most of the New testament except 2 small letters of John, 2 Pet, Jude, possible Revelation, i believe.

Then you are going by an authority **outside **scripture to tell you what to believe. You yourself are not going by **scripture alone. **Alone means **alone. **It does not mean alone + another authority.

I rest my case.

 

[EA_Man]

Kay Cee:

Then you are going by an authority **outside **scripture to tell you what to believe. You yourself are not going by **scripture alone. **Alone means **alone. **It does not mean alone + another authority.

I rest my case.

You’re introducing assumptions into Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura says that the ony source of dogma is Scripture. It does not forbid extra-biblical resources being used in the interpretive process. Nor does it suggest that the bible itself explicitly states what the canon of Scripture contains.

You’re setting up a straw man.

 

[Kay_Cee]

EA_Man:

You’re introducing assumptions into Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura says that the ony source of dogma is Scripture. It does not forbid extra-biblical resources being used in the interpretive process. Nor does it suggest that the bible itself explicitly states what the canon of Scripture contains.

You’re setting up a straw man.

No, you’re saying that scripture alone does not mean scripture alone.

In order to have your dogma of *scripture alone *it is necessary to have scripture.

In order to have scripture it is necessary to know what scripture is.

In order to know what scripture is, it is necessary to have some way of determining what scripture is.

It is therefore necessary to appeal to an authority outside scripture.

An authority outside scripture is therefore necessary.

It is not, therefore, scripture alone.

kaycee’s definition of sola scriptura: "The whole counsel of God, concerning **all things necessary **for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture . . . "

All things necessary means all things necessary. Yet there is something necessary that is not expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture.

 

[Lazerlike42]

EA_Man:

You’re introducing assumptions into Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura says that the ony source of dogma is Scripture. It does not forbid extra-biblical resources being used in the interpretive process. Nor does it suggest that the bible itself explicitly states what the canon of Scripture contains.

You’re setting up a straw man.

There’s a major problem with that arguement. If we subscribe to that, then the Bible may just as equally be a collection of fairy tales written by a drunk as it may be the Word of God. You trust it is truly the Word of God and inspired, and that God ensured that. The problem is that you have nothing inspired to say that God really did ensure that. The whole thing could be a huge mistake. It could be, as Muslims claim, that Paul just made up the whole religion on his own.

I’d have to say that what Scripture is is a pretty important dogma! The canon of the Bible has nothing to do with interpretation. Interpretation is figuring out what the Scriptures mean once you have them. You’re talking about figuring out what exactly Scripture is. If, as you say, extrabiblical sources can be used to determine this, then I ask what those sources are. What divinely inspired source outside of the Bible tells us this?

 

[kaycee]

Kay Cee:

Then you are going by an authority **outside **scripture to tell you what to believe. You yourself are not going by **scripture alone. **Alone means **alone. **It does not mean alone + another authority.

I rest my case.

Well, before you nod off resting, it seems you are beating the heck out of a straw man! You definition of sola Scriptura is way off and quite illogical! Scripture alone does not mean it is devoid of its Author!

ps 138:2 “I bow down toward your holy temple and give thanks to your name for your steadfast love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above all things your name and your word.” De 4:2 - “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.”

It is Scripture and God, the Holy Spirit! Your straw man would have Moses demanding that GOD prove the commandments were authoratative by refereing only to the commandmentsl???

God spoke thru a donkey! Was the donkey Infallible!

Do you believe “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” Is this scripture not true?

 

[EA_Man]

Lazerlike42:

There’s a major problem with that arguement. If we subscribe to that, then the Bible may just as equally be a collection of fairy tales written by a drunk as it may be the Word of God. You trust it is truly the Word of God and inspired, and that God ensured that. The problem is that you have nothing inspired to say that God really did ensure that. The whole thing could be a huge mistake. It could be, as Muslims claim, that Paul just made up the whole religion on his own.

I’d have to say that what Scripture is is a pretty important dogma! The canon of the Bible has nothing to do with interpretation. Interpretation is figuring out what the Scriptures mean once you have them. You’re talking about figuring out what exactly Scripture is. If, as you say, extrabiblical sources can be used to determine this, then I ask what those sources are. What divinely inspired source outside of the Bible tells us this?

When James or John, Peter or Paul wrote a gospel, epistle or apocalypse, this was sent to a local church or directed to the church at large and then circulated (Gal 1:2; Col 4:16; Jas 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1). The church submitted to the authority of this document. It didn’t come from the Church but was issued to the Church. The Church was the “addressee”. The NT documents are the work of inspired individuals, not conciliar documents. The Church has a role in the general dissemination of the NT, but that is not at all the same thing as a productive role. Without the Post Office I might not get my mail, but that doesn’t mean that my mail is from the Post Office - it simply delivers it.

 

[EA_Man]

Kay Cee:

No, you’re saying that scripture alone does not mean scripture alone.

In order to have your dogma of *scripture alone *it is necessary to have scripture.

In order to have scripture it is necessary to know what scripture is.

In order to know what scripture is, it is necessary to have some way of determining what scripture is.

It is therefore necessary to appeal to an authority outside scripture.

An authority outside scripture is therefore necessary.

It is not, therefore, scripture alone.

kaycee’s definition of sola scriptura: "The whole counsel of God, concerning **all things necessary **for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture . . . "

All things necessary means all things necessary. Yet there is something necessary that is not expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture.

This argument is based upon oversimplication. My advice is that you gain a better understanding of what Sola Scriptura is and what it is not.

Your argument is against a straw man.

Peace

 

[Lazerlike42]

I will ask you again kaycee:

James 2:24 - “So you see then that man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.”

Romans 2:6-8 - “Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath”

Mat 19:17-19 - “And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

2Th 2:15 - “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

1Ti 3:15 But if I should be delayed, I have written so that you will know how people ought to act in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
(before you say it, realize that in the Greek the words"pillar and foundation of truth" refer to the church, not to God).

Are these scriptures not true?

And kaycee - are you really using Deuteronomy 4:2??? Are you really???

If you use Deuteronomy 4:2, you have the biggest problem in the world, because this would mean that Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehimiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeramiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habukkuk, Zephania, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Collosians, 1 Thessolonians, 2 Thessolonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation are all blasphemous, evil and vile things added to God’s Word. Do you really believe this???

 

[E.E.N.S]

EA_Man:

When James or John, Peter or Paul wrote a gospel, epistle or apocalypse, this was sent to a local church or directed to the church at large and then circulated (Gal 1:2; Col 4:16; Jas 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1). The church submitted to the authority of this document. It didn’t come from the Church but was issued to the Church. The Church was the “addressee”. The NT documents are the work of inspired individuals, not conciliar documents. The Church has a role in the general dissemination of the NT, but that is not at all the same thing as a productive role. Without the Post Office I might not get my mail, but that doesn’t mean that my mail is from the Post Office - it simply delivers it.

To the Church from the Church…unless of course you are trying to say that the apostles (and other disciples who wrote letters, etc.) weren’t part of the Church…?

 

[Lazerlike42]

EA_Man:

When James or John, Peter or Paul wrote a gospel, epistle or apocalypse, this was sent to a local church or directed to the church at large and then circulated (Gal 1:2; Col 4:16; Jas 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1). The church submitted to the authority of this document. It didn’t come from the Church but was issued to the Church. The Church was the “addressee”. The NT documents are the work of inspired individuals, not conciliar documents. The Church has a role in the general dissemination of the NT, but that is not at all the same thing as a productive role. Without the Post Office I might not get my mail, but that doesn’t mean that my mail is from the Post Office - it simply delivers it.

Oh… so then… how did Hebrews make it into the Bible?

or… Revelation, which was not written by John the Apostle.

or… Mark…

or Luke…

Acts…

 

[Lazerlike42]

EA_Man:

This argument is based upon oversimplication. My advice is that you gain a better understanding of what Sola Scriptura is and what it is not.

Your argument is against a straw man.

Peace

It’s not oversimplification. It’s not a straw man. It seems to me that “you don’t understand Sola Scriptura” is a straw man. Instead of actually answering our questions, all you can do is say, “oh well you don’t understand Sola Scriptura.” Is that what you tell Jews who try to say Isaiah 53 refers to Israel? Do you tell them, “oh you don’t understand Isaiah,” or do you address their arguements?

EA_man, answer straightforwardly: how do you know that the books in the Bible are supposed to be there, especially books like Hebrews which we don’t even know the author of? How do you know that they are really Scripture? How do you know the Muslims are wrong and Paul didn’t really change the entire message of Christianity to his own liking? How do you know Paul’s letters belong there? How do you know which OT books belong in the Bible, seeing as they weren’t from apostles to the Church? How you do know that the Maccabees don’t belong there? How do you know without a doubt that these things realy teach you correctly what you are supposed to know and that they aren’t wrong, or forgeries?

And do you really think God would leave His people having to figure this stuff out for themselves?

 

[E.E.N.S]

(Objection: In the Church everyone is subject only to the authority of the Bible.)

**28:19

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

28:20

teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

**

These verses are known as “The Great Commission.” Here Jesus tells the apostles to baptize and teach what He taught them. He didn’t instruct them to go and write a book. Jesus Himself never wrote a book. He would have been the most logical one to do so if that is what He intended; to build a church based on a book. The Church is built by teaching others through preaching the teachings of Jesus. Faith comes from what is heard [preached] (Romans 10:17). The Church existed before the Bible.

 

[EA_Man]

E.E.N.S.:

To the Church from the Church…unless of course you are trying to say that the apostles (and other disciples who wrote letters, etc.) weren’t part of the Church…?

Who was the inspired author, Paul or the Corinthians?
Did the church at Corinth instruct Paul or was it the other way around?

Peace

 

[Lazerlike42]

EA_Man:

Who was the inspired author, Paul or the Corinthians?
Did the church at Corinth instruct Paul or was it the other way around?

Peace

Paul was the instructor, and Paul was a part of the Church.

 

[E.E.N.S]

EA_Man:

Who was the inspired author, Paul or the Corinthians?
Did the church at Corinth instruct Paul or was it the other way around?

Peace

The apostle Paul would be what we call a bishop…our bishops today are successors to the apostles - and the Bishop of Rome is the successor to Peter.

Thank you!