Is the bible all we need 2?

[eakswim]

**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?

**
3RD, A SEAL WAS PLACED ON THE FINAL CHAPTER OF THE FINAL BOOK OF THE BIBLE, SIGNIFYING ITS COMPLETION AND WARNING EVERY MAN NOT TO ADD TO OR SUBTRACT FROM IT.
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18,19).

Those who claim to have a new revelation or a tradition equal to the Bible fall under the judgment described in this passage. The book of Revelation concludes and completes the Holy Scripture. Nothing is to be added or removed.

4TH, THE COMPLETED CANON OF SCRIPTURE WAS RECOGNIZED IN THE SECOND CENTURY, LONG BEFORE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH EXISTED.

Christian leaders in the 2nd century recognized the completed canon of the New Testament and accepted the apostolic writings as Holy Scripture on equal authority with the Old Testament.

Irenaeus (125-192), for example, in his extant writings, made 1,800 quotations from the New Testament books and used them “in such a way as to imply that they had for some time been considered as of unquestioned authority” (Herbert Miller, General Biblical Introduction, p. 140). Irenaeus accepted the four Gospels, and four only, as Scripture.

Clement of Alexandria (150-217) quoted from and acknowledged the four Gospels and most other New Testament books, calling them “divine Scriptures.”

Tertullian (150-220) made 7,200 citations from the New Testament books and accepted them as Scripture.

The Latin Itala translation, which was probably made in the second century, “contained all the books that now make up the New Testament” (John Hentz, History of the Lutheran Version, p. 59).

A list of New Testament Scriptures dating to the latter half of the 2nd century was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, Italy, in 1740. This 2nd-century list contains all of the 27 books of the New Testament canon (Hentz, p. 60).

Thus the completed New Testament Scriptures were being circulated and accepted by God’s people under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Many of the modernistic textual scholars who write today about these early centuries deny, or totally overlook, the working of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration and canonicity of the New Testament. The Apostles were not left to their own devices to transcribe the record of Christ, nor were the early Christians left to their own devices to recognize which writings were Scripture (1 Thess. 2:13). The words of the New Testament are the words of the Lord Jesus Christ through divine inspiration, and the Lord’s sheep know the voice of their Good Shepherd and can discern His voice from false shepherds (John 10:4, 5, 27).

 

[mercygate]

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?

3RD, A SEAL WAS PLACED ON THE FINAL CHAPTER OF THE FINAL BOOK OF THE BIBLE, SIGNIFYING ITS COMPLETION AND WARNING EVERY MAN NOT TO ADD TO OR SUBTRACT FROM IT.
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18,19).Was Revelation known to be the last book of Scripture at the time? No. Revelation was placed at the “end” of the Bible by the Church. It is the Book of Revelation to which the “adding and subtracting” warning refers. The books of the NT were not bound in order with a table of contents.

Those who claim to have a new revelation or a tradition equal to the Bible fall under the judgment described in this passage. The book of Revelation concludes and completes the Holy Scripture. . . . .

So, who is claiming to have a new revelation? Catholics and Protestants both hold that Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle (which, BTW, is “tradition”). As for tradition, the Bible itself, incuding the New Testament is “Tradition” because it was the Church that affirmed the authenticity of the texts included as “Scripture” via her Tradition.

**

4TH, THE COMPLETED CANON OF SCRIPTURE WAS RECOGNIZED IN THE SECOND CENTURY, LONG BEFORE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH EXISTED.

**

Christian leaders in the 2nd century recognized the completed canon of the New Testament and accepted the apostolic writings as Holy Scripture on equal authority with the Old Testament.Indeed. All of the books we hold to be NT Scripture were known and recognized as authentic. But they did not acquire the authority of absolute certainty until the full canon was drawn up and agreed upon by the Church in the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late 4th Century. Dozens, if not hundreds, of supposed “gospels” and “epistles” and “apostolic writings” were circulating and even being read in Churches as late as the 3rd and even 4th Centuries. “Canonization” of scripture was more a process of elmination than of inclusion.

Irenaeus (125-192), for example, in his extant writings, made 1,800 quotations from the New Testament books and used them “in such a way as to imply that they had for some time been considered as of unquestioned authority” (Herbert Miller, General Biblical Introduction

, p. 140). Irenaeus accepted the four Gospels, and four only, as Scripture.Of course the books we know today as Scripture had been esteemed as authoritative. What’s the beef?

Irenaeus also stated that “because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree” with Rome. Does your Baptist friend want to deal with that?

Clement of Alexandria (150-217) quoted from and acknowledged the four Gospels and most other New Testament books, calling them “divine Scriptures.”

Tertullian (150-220) made 7,200 citations from the New Testament books and accepted them as Scripture.

The Latin Itala

translation, which was probably made in the second century, “contained all the books that now make up the New Testament” (John Hentz, History of the Lutheran Version, p. 59).

A list of New Testament Scriptures dating to the latter half of the 2nd century was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, Italy, in 1740. This 2nd-century list contains all of the 27 books of the New Testament canon (Hentz, p. 60).

Thus the completed New Testament Scriptures were being circulated and accepted by God’s people under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Many of the modernistic textual scholars who write today about these early centuries deny, or totally overlook, the working of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration and canonicity of the New Testament. The Apostles were not left to their own devices to transcribe the record of Christ, nor were the early Christians left to their own devices to recognize which writings were Scripture (1 Thess. 2:13). The words of the New Testament are the words of the Lord Jesus Christ through divine inspiration, and the Lord’s sheep know the voice of their Good Shepherd and can discern His voice from false shepherds (John 10:4, 5, 27).

This whole list your friend has mounted isn’t saying anything that contradicts the Catholic view of the origin of the New Testament. There is no quarrel between Protestants and Catholics about what is canonical in the New Testament.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Revelation was written at the latest in 90.

Your friend is correct in saying that some of the New Testament books were accepted as authentic in the 2nd century, but they were never put together into one book until 397. Even if your friend wants to argue they were all accepted so it doesn’t matter if they were in a book, he still has a problem because of his claim that it’s sealed as the last book of the Bible. It wasn’t put at the end until 397, even if it was accepted!

When John wrote Revelation. he did not know, nor plan, that Revelation was going to be put into a book. The warning against adding or subtracting refers EXPLICITLY and ONLY to the prophecy contained in Revelation. It was a VERY COMMON practice to seal up prophecies until the appropriate time. Daniel was told to do so with his prophecy (Dan. 12:4).

Tell your friend to read Deuteronomy 4:2, where Moses says, “You must not add anything to what I command you or take anything away from it, so that you may keep the commands of the LORD your God I am giving you.”

Does that mean that every book in the Bible after Deuteronomy is not allowed? Of course not! Moses was referring very specifically to the set of commands he was giving them as a whole. He was NOT refferring to all the Scriptures, or to all the Word of God. This is the same as what John means in Revelation.

 

[Lazerlike42]

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ45.HTM

Go there.

It will help you see when each book was accepted as authentic, or when each was rejected, and by whom.

 

[I_A]

The question is not what the cookie cutter answers are to these… inquiries, rather why you’re friend brings these up. Pray that the Holy Spirit may lead you and enable you to lead your friend to the fullness of truth.

The second question states, “long before the Roman Catholic Church existed.” He works off the assumption that the Church was not established by Christ during his life.
Matthew 16:18-19:

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp

The church recognized this authority and the ability of it to be handed down.
Pope Clement the first wrote in 80 AD,

]Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry
catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

Now there is never any new revelation, ever. All the Church teaches is the teachings of Christ. And we have been given the promise from the mouth of Christ, in scripture, that the church will not fail us. The members of the magesterium CAN NOT ever change any teaching because it is not their teaching to change. It is Christ’s truth that can not be changed. Why then did all the protestant denominations capitulate to birth control in the 1930s? How many ‘religious’ people do you see who have gotten divorced and remarried? What do their churches think about that? Surely it must be what Christ taught.
Luke 16:18:

Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Why can others change on Christ’s teaching, but not Catholics? It would certainly be convenient if Catholics could get divorced. The fact is we can only teach from the deposit of faith, what has been left to us from Christ. At the death of the last apostle all new public revelation ended. As Catholics we can only pass on what Christ has passed on to us. We can not change it. How others have so blatantly changed or ignored Christ’s teaching on marriage makes me nervous of their claims that everything they teach is inspired by the God.

His devotion to the bible, while out of a good motivation, is troublesome because although the bible is inerrant, people can read what they want out of it. Look how many sects that teach different things from the bible, all claiming to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. God does not say 1+1= both 2 and 9. Either one or both are false. How could you manage to understand what the bible means when you snatch it from the house it was conceived and grew in?

The bible is not the pillar and foundation of truth. The church is!
1 Tim 3:15:

But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

It was in this church that the Holy Spirit made the bible, and in it he expects it to be understood.

catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

Now I’m not going to write now about how the protestant reformers excised parts of the bible after 1300 years of Christians using the one same bible, but you can look up yourself why they decided to take out some of the Old Testament books. If he thinks a seal exists on the bible in such a way it is his sects who have violated the sacred texts.

Look around on reputable Catholic websites and read reliable books. Get a copy of the Catechism and those to your study of the bible.

Pray for the intercession of Mary, St. Jerome, and Michael. Pray that the Holy Spirit may work through you to lead all men to Jesus.

 

[PhilVaz]

They bring up Irenaeus and Tertullian. OK, they asked for it:

“For how should it be if the Apostles themselves had NOT left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the TRADITION which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:4:1)

“Wherefore it is incumbent to OBEY the presbyters who are in the Church…those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of TRUTH…” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:26:2)

“In this order, and by this SUCCESSION, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is MOST abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:3)

“Let them show the origins of their churches, let them unroll the list of their Bishops (showing) through a succession coming down from the very beginning that their first Bishop had his authority and predecessor someone from among the number of Apostles or apostolic men and, further, that he did not stray from the Apostles. In this way the apostolic churches present their earliest records. The church of Smyrna, for example, records that Polycarp was named by John; the Romans, that Clement was ordained by Peter. In just the same way, the other churches show who were made Bishops by the Apostles and who transmitted the apostolic seed to them. Let the heretics invent something like that.” (Tertullian, De praescr haeret 32)

I don’t think they agree with Irenaeus and Tertullian all that much. These early Fathers and writers citing some of the Scriptures and Gospels is just fine, but ask them who is their bishop? Irenaeus and Tertullian want to know.

Phil P

 

[Kay_Cee]

3RD, A SEAL WAS PLACED ON THE FINAL CHAPTER OF THE FINAL BOOK OF THE BIBLE, SIGNIFYING ITS COMPLETION AND WARNING EVERY MAN NOT TO ADD TO OR SUBTRACT FROM IT.
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18,19).

Those who claim to have a new revelation or a tradition equal to the Bible fall under the judgment described in this passage. The book of Revelation concludes and completes the Holy Scripture. Nothing is to be added or removed.

Well, your friend is doing exactly what he says no one should do. He is adding to the Bible.

He is adding his own interpretation.

Where in the world does he get the idea that a seal was placed on the Bible, and that this seal signified its completion? If he tells you it’s there in the text, ask him where. For the life of me, I don’t see the word *seal *anywhere in the scripture passage he quoted.

 

[eakswim]

Thanks For All Your Help In Answering These Questions

 

[JimG]

Tell you friend, “yes, the bible is all we need. I have read the bible and it leads me to the Catholic Church.”

 

[PhilNeri]

He says the canon was accepted by church leaders “before the Catholic Church even existed.” When does he say the Catholic Church began? I always thought that Jesus founded it. But that’s just me.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

PhilNeri:

He says the canon was accepted by church leaders “before the Catholic Church even existed.” When does he say the Catholic Church began? I always thought that Jesus founded it. But that’s just me.

For a defence of Sola Scriptura against Catholic arguments, see these:​

triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/ten-objections-to-sola-scriptura-1.html

triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/ten-objections-to-sola-scriptura-2.html

• and see under “Countercultism” for more rebuttals of Catholic arguments, etc. ##

 

[ByzantineCatho]

## For a defence of Sola Scriptura against Catholic arguments, see these:

triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/ten-objections-to-sola-scriptura-1.html

triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/ten-objections-to-sola-scriptura-2.html

triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/ten-objections-to-sola-scriptura-3.html

• and see under “Countercultism” for more rebuttals of Catholic arguments, etc. ##

Gottle of Geer,

Are you really Catholic?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

ByzantineCatho:

Gottle of Geer,

Are you really Catholic?

Because I’m Catholic, I think it is essential for us to face the best arguments argument what we say - because any half-wit can dispose of lame arguments.​

Bad reasoning, poor theology, weak history, won’t fool any but the ignorant. A lot of other Christians, far from being unintelligent, are well-read, knowledgeable, good debaters, sound reasoners, and well acquainted with history - they are more than capable of putting up solid objections to Catholicism, which are sure to flatten any Catholic foolish enough or rash enough to think that only Catholicism can be defended. It’s not so, at all. We need to know the strong arguments against what we say, otherwise we are going to look extremely foolish - not the weak ones. They convince only the unlearned or the ignorant, and that is not where the difficulty lies - the danger to people’s faith is from the intelligent reasoners, not from the ill-informed ranters against the Church.

We owe it to to others to argue intelligently - not foolishly. Or do we want Catholics to be bowled over by a defence of (say) Sola Scriptura which they have not the means to meet, because they wasted their time attacking a straw version of Sola Scriptura ?

Or is it viewed as “un-Catholic” to point out that weak arguments for Catholicism will not do ? (See St. Thomas in the SCG, on this very point)

Other Christians are not all blockheads, bigots, or ignoramuses. We cannot afford the luxury of annihilating beliefs which no thinking person holds - we have to take serious & intelligent arguments against Catholicism with the seriousness they deserve, and not treat the intelligently-held beliefs of millions of our fellow-Christians like so much equine excrement. What conceivable right have we to complain of contempt for our beliefs, or of distortion of them, if we are treat the beliefs of others with ham-fisted contempt ? If we want our beliefs to be treated decently by non-Catholics, and not rejected as blasphemous or irrational nonsense, we have to treat their beliefs with respect ourselves, and not distort them

Or is Catholic apologetic so weak, that it can no longer treat other beliefs with respect or understanding, sympathy, or intelligence ? May it not be so.

BTW - that third link is no good. My fault. Sorry. ##

 

[Ignatius]

eakswim:

Christian leaders in the 2nd century recognized the completed canon of the New Testament and accepted the apostolic writings as Holy Scripture on equal authority with the Old Testament.

Actually, your friend is in error here, the Canon of the New Testament wasn’t determined until the fourth century. That means that the first christians moved forward spreading the Faith for nearly 400 years using Sacred Tradition alone. In fact, the New Testament was determined by the Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit using Sacred Tradition alone. In other words the New Testament is the issue of Sacred Tradition, not the other way around.