Simple and babe like truth : Scriptural sufficiency

[OnlineHarvest]

There is a lot of confusion among Roman Catholics by what we mean of Scriptural sufficiency. We do not suggest that everything Christ ever said or did is recorded in Scripture. It is not an encyclopedia of all information, or even all spiritual information. Rather, it is sufficient for its purpose. This is best illustrated at the end of John:
And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30,31).
See how simple this is?

Is everything written down? Nope. Of course not.

But what we do have written down is written for what? That we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing have life in His name!

I’ve also heard complaints that this verse only point to the Gospel of John. However, if you just think for a moment, you will see that if this statement only points to John, it proves too much! For if what we have written in the Gospel of John alone is able to do what John says (v.31), imagine what the ENTIRE DESPOSIT of Scripture would be able to do! If this single book is sufficient to do what John says it can do (the lesser), surely the whole record of Scripture can do even more (the greater).

So if you deny the Scripture is able to do what John says it can do (whether his Gospel alone or by extension the whole Scripture deposit), you are contending with God, not us.

 

[sterryfamily]

There is a lot of confusion among Roman Catholics by what we mean of Scriptural sufficiency. We do not suggest that everything Christ ever said or did is recorded in Scripture. It is not an encyclopedia of all information, or even all spiritual information. Rather, it is sufficient for its purpose. This is best illustrated at the end of John:
And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30,31).
See how simple this is?

Is everything written down? Nope. Of course not.

But what we do have written down is written for what? That we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing have life in His name!

I’ve also heard complaints that this verse only point to the Gospel of John. However, if you just think for a moment, you will see that if this statement only points to John, it proves too much! For if what we have written in the Gospel of John alone is able to do what John says (v.31), imagine what the ENTIRE DESPOSIT of Scripture would be able to do! If this single book is sufficient to do what John says it can do (the lesser), surely the whole record of Scripture can do even more (the greater).

So if you deny the Scripture is able to do what John says it can do (whether his Gospel alone or by extension the whole Scripture deposit), you are contending with God, not us.

And St Paul says we must hold fast to all tradition handed down, whether by word of mouth or by letter

And Jesus says only those who do the will of his Father can enter the kingdom of God

Shall we go on?..

 

[itsjustdave1988]

There is a lot of confusion among Roman Catholics by what we mean of Scriptural sufficiency. …

If it is claimed that such “sufficiency” excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church, then that is certainly not what Scripture teaches.

For instance, Matt 18:15ff tells us to “listen to the Church.” Why would it if Scripture was all that we needed? Shouldn’t Matthew have said, “if he still does not listen, HAND HIM A BIBLE. If he does not even FOLLOW THE BIBLE, then treat him as a gentile or tax collector.” The fact is, Matthew made CLEAR that the CHURCH is the final arbiter when brethren sin against one another. And make no mistake, heresy is a sin against Christian brethren.

Protestants read into the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference ALSO to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14).

Furthermore, what about this passage, also from Paul:

“And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Eph. 4:11–15).

The above passage doesn’t even mention the Bible. Ephesians 4 must therefore prove the sufficiency of the teaching authority of pastors and teachers to “attain to the unity of the faith and knowledge.” It seems then that Scripture teaches us that Scripture and the Church have complementary roles in handing on the deposit of faith “once and for all delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 11).

 

[OnlineHarvest]

And St Paul says we must hold fast to all tradition handed down, whether by word of mouth or by letter

And Jesus says only those who do the will of his Father can enter the kingdom of God

Shall we go on?..

Do you reply to my post by NOT addressing the verse in question? Or do you disagree with John’s assessment of “what is written” and its states purpose?

 

[OnlineHarvest]

If it is claimed that such “sufficiency” excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church, then that is certainly not what Scripture teaches.

For instance, Matt 18:15ff tells us to “listen to the Church.” Why would it if Scripture was all that we needed? Shouldn’t Matthew have said, “if he still does not listen, HAND HIM A BIBLE. If he does not even FOLLOW THE BIBLE, then treat him as a gentile or tax collector.” The fact is, Matthew made CLEAR that the CHURCH is the final arbiter when brethren sin against one another. And make no mistake, heresy is a sin against Christian brethren.

Protestants read into the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference ALSO to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14).

Furthermore, what about this passage, also from Paul:

“And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Eph. 4:11–15).

The above passage doesn’t even mention the Bible. Ephesians 4 must therefore prove the sufficiency of the teaching authority of pastors and teachers to “attain to the unity of the faith and knowledge.” It seems then that Scripture teaches us that Scripture and the Church have complementary roles in handing on the deposit of faith “once and for all delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 11).

Was that scripted? I posted ONE VERSE and you ignored it altogether. Do you agree or disagree that if we read what is “written” we can believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and by believing have life in His name? That is all I asked and you went on some parade.

I’ll address what you posted when you address what I posted (since *you *replied to me).

Is John wrong in stating what he says?

 

[pete_29]

That you MAY believe that Jesus is the Christ. If scripture alone was sufficient wouldn’t the verse read ; that you WILL believe that Jesus is the Christ.

 

[OnlineHarvest]

That you MAY believe that Jesus is the Christ. If scripture alone was sufficient wouldn’t the verse read ; that you WILL believe that Jesus is the Christ.

LOL.

Yeah, John was so UNSURE of himself.

And even if I accept that, if it MAY, that means IT CAN. And again I would ask, do you agree or disagree with John?

 

[pete_29]

LOL.

Yeah, John was so UNSURE of himself.

And even if I accept that, if it MAY, that means IT CAN. And again I would ask, do you agree or disagree with John?

YES, it can, but does that restrict other methods of bringing some one to faith, such as oral teaching.

Why the laugh.

 

[OnlineHarvest]

YES, it can, but does that restrict other methods of bringing some one to faith, such as oral teaching.

Why the laugh.

I didn’t say this was the ONLY method. I claimed (based on the Scripture) that reading “what is written” is a sufficient method of bringin one to faith in the true Jesus Christ.

Besides, please provide me with oral teaching of the Gospel that is NOT found within the pages of Scripture? I’m talking about core fundamental truth that saves - is there anything unique? I don’t see any.

And the laugh? I’m weird?

 

[pete_29]

I didn’t say this was the ONLY method. I claimed (based on the Scripture) that reading “what is written” is a sufficient method of bringin one to faith in the true Jesus Christ.

Besides, please provide me with oral teaching of the Gospel that is NOT found within the pages of Scripture? I’m talking about core fundamental truth that saves - is there anything unique? I don’t see any.

And the laugh? I’m weird?

Me too, and I was thinking more along the lines of Sacred Tradition

 

[pete_29]

I’m not educated enough to give a good arguement on this subject. Sorry

 

[ryanoneil]

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30,31).

I agree Scripture assists in learning to believe in Jesus, but this passage does not say Scripture is exclusive, or even necessary, to be saved by Jesus. With that said, I think it’s unwise not to study Scripture. It is an equal part of the Deposit of Faith with oral apostolic tradition.

Peace,

Ryan

 

[sterryfamily]

Do you reply to my post by NOT addressing the verse in question? Or do you disagree with John’s assessment of “what is written” and its states purpose?

Dude, you’re simply being antagonistic. We all know there are parts of the Bible that say that belief is required for salvation. We don’t agree that this means the other parts of the Bible that say that works and grace are required are thereby nullified.

We agree with John. But not with your assessment of his words.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Was that scripted?

It puts into proper context what the real disagreement is between Catholics and Protestants. Your ‘version’ of the Protestant claim of “sufficiency” is incomplete. “Formal sufficiency” and “material sufficiency” are distinct from on another. When Protestants teach that “Church” or “Tradition” is not as binding as Scripture, they teach a heretical kind of “formal sufficiency.”

Do you agree or disagree that if we read what is “written” we can believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and by believing have life in His name?

If you read what is written you can EITHER believe or disbelieve that Jesus is Christ. There have been many who have read the Bible who, because they fail to properly understand it: 1) disbelieve that Jesus is Christ (infidelity), 2) believe that Jesus is Christ but distort the doctrines of Christ (heresy).

So it seems it depends upon how one understands what is written. Reading what is written is not the same as properly understanding and living what is written. You see, that’s the problem. One person can read Scripture and believe we are justified by “faith alone”, but what the Church REALLY teaches is completely different, that “man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).

If you were to read Scripture and properly understood it, you would rightly conclude that we are bound to teachings of Scripture and Tradition. As history has proven, “reading” what is written without properly understanding results in heresy.

However, I believe that reading what is “written” has never been a prerequisite for an individual to becoming Christian. A child or adult who cannot read can still be a child of God, by grace alone. Jesus built a Church, and empowered that Church to teach, serve, and sanctify in his name. That is the teaching of both written Scripture and oral Tradition.

 

[1ke]

There is a lot of confusion among Roman Catholics by what we mean of Scriptural sufficiency. … Rather, it is sufficient for its purpose.

Unfortunately for you, the Bible never claims it is sufficient nor does John’s Gospel claim that. Conversely, Scripture explicitly teaches to hold fast to Tradition, both written and oral.

Private intepretation-- UGH. So glad I left Protestantism behind.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

For the first 350 years of Christianity, there was no ‘canon’ of the Bible. A group of people living in one place may have had read to them the words of St. Paul–perhaps the letter to the Ephesians; they may have heard some of the gospel of Matthew, they may have heard some of the Psalms, part of the book of Exodus. . .and the big emphasis is that they HEARD it. Not ‘read it’–HEARD it.

Then for the next 1150 years or so of Christianity, there were Bibles–painstakingly hand written–in various languages. Again the tiniest fraction of people were able to read these–or any OTHER BOOKS, not ‘just’ the Bible–and so the majority of people ‘heard’ what was read to them–or presented as pageant, or created in art, statue, etc–remembering again that most people’s life spans were short and that life very hard.

Then for about 100 years we had a HUGE influx of people ‘changing around’ the Bible, removing books here and there, emphasizing personal interpretations, even teaching that the words of Jesus didn’t really ‘say’ what the actual written words said. More and more people were able to read, but fewer and fewer of them actually read the ‘full’ Bible, and what they were given was more and more ‘tweaked’ by their ‘leaders’ who were at pains to hold hard to the meanings they ‘interpreted’, such that more and more of these Protestant groups became estranged even from each other and argued over whose interpretation was right.

Ever since then we have had more and more ‘Scripture’ served to us. The Bible in ‘new-speak’. The Bible 'for women". The Bible day-by-day. Now we hear all about the “scripture that was ‘kept’ from the Bible.” We are inundated with ‘so-called Scripture’.

So please tell me why SCRIPTURE (given its 2000 year Christian history) is considered ‘sufficient’ though millions of people never ‘read’ it, millions more were given ‘flawed’ versions of it, and millions more interpret it to say things which millions of other Christians deny.

Now thankfully I’m Catholic and therefore I luckily have not only the full Scripture, I have the 2000 year sacred tradition (which complements and never contradicts Scripture) as well as the Magesterium and 2000 years’ worth of godly scholars and a Church to whom God gave the AUTHORITY to interpret Scripture. Therefore I can give to Scripture its ‘proper’ place as the written word of God, can ‘read’ it in the way in which God inspired it and understand it as the Holy Spirit interprets it for us, and can fully nourish myself with the Scriptural nourishment that is a large part (but not the only part) of nourishment I need as a Christian. But others lack the true nourishment, or take it improperly, and thus are suffering Scriptural malnourishment, or indigestion.

 

[De_Maria]

There is a lot of confusion among Roman Catholics by what we mean of Scriptural sufficiency.

That is because there is just as much confusion amongst Protestants. When you guys can decide amongst yourselves what you mean, let us know.

We do not suggest that everything Christ ever said or did is recorded in Scripture.

Then why is your first question always, “where is that in Scripture?”

It is not an encyclopedia of all information, or even all spiritual information. Rather, it is sufficient for its purpose.

Great. That is the Catholic understanding. It is materially sufficient all the information necessary for belief. But it is not “formally” sufficient because it needs someone to interpret its contents. This fact is further proven by the fact that you feel it necessary to explain this verse to us right now.

This is best illustrated at the end of John:And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30,31).
See how simple this is?

Yes. After you’ve explained it. Now I see how this verse conforms exactly to Catholic doctrine.

But tell me, why do Protestants insist that we should not keep the traditions? I don’t see where this verse condemns traditions and I see where Scripture says we must keep traditions:

2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Is everything written down? Nope. Of course not.

But what we do have written down is written for what? That we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing have life in His name!

I’ve also heard complaints that this verse only point to the Gospel of John. However, if you just think for a moment, you will see that if this statement only points to John, it proves too much! For if what we have written in the Gospel of John alone is able to do what John says (v.31), imagine what the ENTIRE DESPOSIT of Scripture would be able to do! If this single book is sufficient to do what John says it can do (the lesser), surely the whole record of Scripture can do even more (the greater).

So if you deny the Scripture is able to do what John says it can do (whether his Gospel alone or by extension the whole Scripture deposit), you are contending with God, not us.

I have yet to hear any Catholic deny that Scripture can do what John says it can do. But I have heard many Protestants deny that traditions are necessary as Scripture plainly attests.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[justasking4]

sterryfamily;3110172]And St Paul says we must hold fast to all tradition handed down, whether by word of mouth or by letter

If you are using 2 Thessalonians 2:15 what traditions is Paul referring to?

 

[De_Maria]

If you are using 2 Thessalonians 2:15 what traditions is Paul referring to?

The tradition by" word of mouth" refers to the Mass and to the teaching and preaching of the Gospel.

1 Corinthians 11
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.

The tradition by letter refers to the Scriptures.

***80 **“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.
*
Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[justasking4]

De Maria;3115598]The tradition by" word of mouth" refers to the Mass and to the teaching and preaching of the Gospel.

1 Corinthians 11
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.

If you look at the context where he mentions the Lord’s supper he is not telling us its a “Mass” but giving instructions in how they are to come together and the significance of the Lord’s supper.

The tradition by letter refers to the Scriptures.

If you read carefully what you have written below Scripture and Tradition are not the same things.

"***80 **“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.
*

Sincerely,

De Maria