since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need...

[ChevalierdeJohn]

Why are we still entertaining this ignorant argument? You don’t have to be Catholic to figure this out. Read John 1:1.

Is John 1:1 talking about The Bible? Snce John 1:1 is IN the Bible, “The Bible” had not even been compiled at the time John 1:1 was written.

Therefore, categorically, without any possible doubt unless you are a heretical apostate unbeliever who subscribes to irrational ahistorical nonsense, The Bible Is Not The Word.

Jesus is the Word.

Choose. Christ or the Bible? If you choose the Bible and not Christ, you are not a Christian. You are a Biblician.

Thanks be to God that the One True Holy and Apolistic Catholic Church compiled some of the life and teachings of Christ in a document through which we can come to better know Him. Although, of course, we can also just talk to Him whenever we want.

I am sick of this. Catholics have better things to do than constantly teach people how to use basic human reason. Retarded people can figure this out. Little children can figure this out. We have to conclude that the only reason to persist in the insane belief that “The Bible is the Word and that’s all I need” is a willful denial of God’s Truth as objectively revealed by reality.

 

[thetazlord]

This is your interpretation based upon your adherence to the error of Sola Scriptura which itself has no basis in the Word of God, therefore violates its own premise and by its own standards cannot be a correct doctrine.

It’s not based on “my” interpretation at all, but rather having the ability to recognize a contradiction based on a misinterpretation of Scripture when I see it. In context, I was addressing PRmerger about the meaning of John 3:5. Since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need (the title of this OP), then Scripture alone tells us that the meaning of the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, not water baptism. Believing it refers to the waters of baptism creates contradictions in the “belief” of baptism by desire, baptized by blood, invincible ignorance, & the “hope” of salvation of babies who die without baptism. The reason “your” interpretation leads to a contradiction, is because Jesus said “Unless one is born of water & the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” So, “if” the ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism, then Jesus is saying that a person “cannot” enter Heaven, “unless” he is baptized in water. Therefore, believeing any of the above groups “can” get into Heaven would contradict “your” interpretation of Jesus regarding the meaning of “water” in John 3:5.

Also, as demonstrated numerous times from the Word of God, sola scriptura is explicitly taught throughout Scripture - numerous times - from the Torah to the last page of Revelation. So, it’s not that sola scriptura isn’t Scripturally supported, but rather you reject those particular Scripture verses that explicitly supports it.

Your inability to accept and willingness to ignore the vast amount of early church writings by Christians who were disciples of the apostles themselves completely cripples your interpretations.

Your inability to accept that not “all” of the early church writings believed that the ‘water’ in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, let alone the salvific works involved in water baptismal regeneration, because there is ZERO Scriptural support for it. Saying “that’s just your interpretation” is a weak argument, because - no offense - I could just as easily use that argument with you.

 

[thetazlord]

Why are we still entertaining this ignorant argument? You don’t have to be Catholic to figure this out. Read John 1:1.

Is John 1:1 talking about The Bible? Snce John 1:1 is IN the Bible, “The Bible” had not even been compiled at the time John 1:1 was written.

Therefore, categorically, without any possible doubt unless you are a heretical apostate unbeliever who subscribes to irrational ahistorical nonsense, The Bible Is Not The Word.

Jesus is the Word.

Choose. Christ or the Bible? If you choose the Bible and not Christ, you are not a Christian. You are a Biblician.

Thanks be to God that the One True Holy and Apolistic Catholic Church compiled some of the life and teachings of Christ in a document through which we can come to better know Him. Although, of course, we can also just talk to Him whenever we want.

I am sick of this. Catholics have better things to do than constantly teach people how to use basic human reason. Retarded people can figure this out. Little children can figure this out. We have to conclude that the only reason to persist in the insane belief that “The Bible is the Word and that’s all I need” is a willful denial of God’s Truth as objectively revealed by reality.

Paul stating “ALL Scripture is Inspired (God-breathed),” which not only includes the OT Scriptures, but also the NT Scriptures such as ALL Paul’s Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:15-16) & Luke’s Scriptures (1 Timothy 5:18, cf. Luke 10:7), doesn’t make him a “Biblician.” A “Biblican” the way you are using it is someone who believes the Bible “is” God. No one who believes in sola scriptura believes or teaches that. Rather, they believe & teach what the Bible teaches - that Scripture alone is sufficient pertaining to Christian doctrines & beliefs, since Scripture teaches not to “add to,” nor “take away from,” nor “exceed what is written” from the written, Inspired Word of God, which Scripture refers to itself as.

Scripture and Christ aren’t two things a Christian has to choose between. In fact, it’s necessary, because since Scripture “is” God-breathed, it is the only God-breathed creation that we can have 100% certainty that the Jesus Christians worship is the One & only God-Man Jesus.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Jesus is God. Jesus BREATHED on the disciples and gave them the power to forgive and RETAIN sin. If the Word of God is all that we need–why did Jesus give the disciples this power? Why don’t Protestants believe in this God breathed power?

 

[PRmerger]

In context, I was addressing PRmerger about the meaning of John 3:5.

Well, you were telling me what your interpretation is of John 3:5.

But since you are fallible, which means you are going to be wrong in some/all of your interpretations, I can’t put much stock in what you are proposing it means.

At any rate, your paradigm is that no one should tell another person what it means–we get to read it and decide its meaning for ourselves.

And I decide that it means something completely different than what you say it means.

 

[PRmerger]

No one who believes in sola scriptura believes or teaches that. Rather, they believe & teach what the Bible teaches - that Scripture alone is sufficient pertaining to Christian doctrines & beliefs, since Scripture teaches not to “add to,” nor “take away from,” nor “exceed what is written” from the written, Inspired Word of God, which Scripture refers to itself as.

Except that the Bible never states that the Bible ALONE is sufficient pertaining to Christian doctrines and beliefs.

And if you really believe that no one should ADD TO, then you have to reject the gospels, which were ADDED after Paul wrote his epistles. As well as rejecting John and the encyclicals of Peter.

Why are you reserving for yourself the right to ADD to Scripture, but oppose it when Catholics do?

Scripture and Christ aren’t two things a Christian has to choose between. In fact, it’s necessary, because since Scripture “is” God-breathed, it is the only God-breathed creation that we can have 100% certainty that the Jesus Christians worship is the One & only God-Man Jesus.

Where does the Bible say that the Bible is the ONLY God-breathed creation?

Answer: nowhere.

That is (another) man-made tradition you’ve espoused.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Scripture and Christ aren’t two things a Christian has to choose between. In fact, it’s necessary, because since Scripture “is” God-breathed, it is the only God-breathed creation that we can have 100% certainty that the Jesus Christians worship is the One & only God-Man Jesus.

Christ and the Catholic Church aren’t two things a Christian has to choose between, either.

In fact, the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation since it is the only Church that we can have 100% certainty that Jesus promised to build upon Peter, the rock.

 

[benhur]

No it did not. It was a local council. In fact, that mention of said list of books was only binding to the local area and not to the Church as a Whole. As it is obvious from the differing canons used in the East and the West.

While the books have been circulating since before Hippo, it wasn’t until Trent that a reactionary decree was made exclusively in the West, due to the challenges of the Reformation.

Thank you. I thought I read that before, maybe from one of your posts.

 

[benhur]

These are good questions benhur.

Infallibility and inspiration are different charisms.

I am not claiming Councils are “inspired”.

Inspiration is a positive charism.

Infallibility is a protective charism. Protection against giving the wrong answer, protection against error (sometimes called a “negative charism”).

An infallible teaching may not be real clear. It may not be very pastoral. It may not be the best timing (maybe this expounding on this or that should have came earlier). But protected against error, an infallible teaching is.

It is beyond the scope of this thread to differentiate infallibility from inspiration any further but if interested, Karl Keating explains some of those nuances here if you are interested.

If you want to know what is or is not infallible, Vatican I explains it. Also Scott Hahn gets into this superficially here, a little more depth here, and even more depth here (on audio 3 of 4).

An “Ecumenical” or “General Council” merely means they have the Bishops from the world over and their appointed advisers meeting or at least invited to meet.

There is significance to all of the Councils benhur because our leaders, the Bishops (united to St. Peter’s successor, the Bishop of Rome), protect these Councils to help sort out doctrinal disagreements or decide how to pastorally approach the people with doctrinal teaching that may not even be in dispute.

There is significance to all of the Councils benhur because our leaders, the Bishops, protect these Councils that are called and these same Bishops are the overseers of our souls (something else that doesn’t fit into the sola Scriptura paradigm).

HEBREWS 13:17a 17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls . . .

---

For more on this topic, see the Catholic Encyclopedia (here)

Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you. I thought I read that before, maybe from one of your posts.

Oh, just to be clear. I never said that it was an ecumenical council.

I simply pointed out that we had a table of contents at Hippo.

Do you dispute that?

 

[zz912]

Scripture and Christ aren’t two things a Christian has to choose between. In fact, it’s necessary, because since Scripture “is” God-breathed, it is the only God-breathed creation that we can have 100% certainty that the Jesus Christians worship is the One & only God-Man Jesus.

The Church is God-breathed, and is the pillar and foundation of the truth. It also will never fail and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Those are direct promises of God.

You ignore them.

 

[PRmerger]

.Scripture and Christ aren’t two things a Christian has to choose between. In fact, it’s necessary, because since Scripture “is” God-breathed, it is the only God-breathed creation that we can have 100% certainty that the Jesus Christians worship is the One & only God-Man Jesus.

I think you forgot that men can be God-breathed, too.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Scripture and Christ aren’t two things a Christian has to choose between. In fact, it’s necessary, because since Scripture “is” God-breathed, it is the only God-breathed creation that we can have 100% certainty that the Jesus Christians worship is the One & only God-Man Jesus.

No. There’s a group of people that was breathed to as well:

John 20:19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

These breathed unto men chose other men by the laying of the hands to succeed them. It’s the breath that keeps on giving.

It’s all right there in Scriptures

 

[stewstew03]

It’s not based on “my” interpretation at all, but rather having the ability to recognize a contradiction based on a misinterpretation of Scripture when I see it.
…

But you’re not claiming an infallible ability to recognize when someone has misinterpreted Scripture, are you? That kinda sounds like you’ve created your very own Magisterium.

Also, as demonstrated numerous times from the Word of God, sola scriptura is explicitly taught throughout Scripture - numerous times - from the Torah to the last page of Revelation. So, it’s not that sola scriptura isn’t Scripturally supported, but rather you reject those particular Scripture verses that explicitly supports it.

Are you making an infallible declaration that Sola Scriptura is taught in scripture, and that those who don’t recognize Sola Scriptura are in error?

[more popcorn…]

 

[PRmerger]

I In context, I was addressing PRmerger about the meaning of John 3:5.

Let’s say the magisterium of the CC tells you: “taz, here’s the meaning of John 3:5”.

You bristle at that, right?

Your whole paradigm is: I don’t need the CC to tell me what a Bible verse means. I get to decide for MYSELF.

You said so right here:

That’s not even an issue. I believe that as well, but not because somebody “told me,” & simply because I “believe” them, but because I READ & studied them MYSELF. And unlike every other piece of religious & secular writing (including the 7 Apocrypha books), the 39 book OT canon & 27 book NT canon in Protestant Bibles are the only piece of writings that contain the godly attributes that qualify as being God-breathed (inerrancy, lack of contradictions, etc).

And yet, peculiarly, you are telling me: “PR, here’s the meaning of John 3:5”.

Why do you reserve for yourself what you object to in the CC?

 

[Magdalena59]

It’s not based on “my” interpretation at all, but rather having the ability to recognize a contradiction based on a misinterpretation of Scripture when I see it. In context, I was addressing PRmerger about the meaning of John 3:5. Since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need (the title of this OP), then Scripture alone tells us that the meaning of the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, not water baptism. Believing it refers to the waters of baptism creates contradictions in the “belief” of baptism by desire, baptized by blood, invincible ignorance, & the “hope” of salvation of babies who die without baptism. The reason “your” interpretation leads to a contradiction, is because Jesus said “Unless one is born of water & the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” So, “if” the ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism, then Jesus is saying that a person “cannot” enter Heaven, “unless” he is baptized in water. Therefore, believeing any of the above groups “can” get into Heaven would contradict “your” interpretation of Jesus regarding the meaning of “water” in John 3:5.

Also, as demonstrated numerous times from the Word of God, sola scriptura is explicitly taught throughout Scripture - numerous times - from the Torah to the last page of Revelation. So, it’s not that sola scriptura isn’t Scripturally supported, but rather you reject those particular Scripture verses that explicitly supports it.

Your inability to accept that not “all” of the early church writings believed that the ‘water’ in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, let alone the salvific works involved in water baptismal regeneration, because there is ZERO Scriptural support for it. Saying “that’s just your interpretation” is a weak argument, because - no offense - I could just as easily use that argument with you.

I am still very curious as to how you know this is what the Scriptures means regarding this Bible verse or any Bible verse when Jesus said in Matthew 18 to take issues to the Church plus Scripture passage of 1 Timothy 3:18 that says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Where do you go to settle disputes over scripture when you do not have a Church to go to settle those disputes.

There are many protestant churches that believe baptism is required for salvation and it must be water baptism, even if you have to dig a well. There are many protestant churches that believe an infant must be baptized and others that say it must be an adult, others require immersion, others allow sprinkling and pouring of water. How do you know which one is right when you do not have a church as your pillar and foundation of truth?

How do you know that your interpretation of Scripture is right and they are wrong when each are relying on Sola Scriptura and your own interpretation thereof or the interpretation of the pastor.

 

[Magdalena59]

Don’t doubt it, maybe some persecution would make some disputes mute. Don’t be scared for the Good Shepherd has it all under control, and handled interpretive disputes perfectly well thruout OT and while He walked this Earth…

One of the reasons Jesus gave us the gift of the Catholic church was to bring unity, end disputes (Old and New Testament times) and give us a place to find the truth.

I would suggest checking out some of Scott Hahn’s books, especially Rome Sweet Home or Thomas Howard’s Evangelical is Not Enough.

The more you grow to see the beauty of the Catholic church and learn it’s wisdom found in the Scripture, Magisterium and Tradition you will draw closer to Jesus than you ever dreamed you could, this side of heaven.

 

[benhur]

Oh, just to be clear. I never said that it was an ecumenical council.

I simply pointed out that we had a table of contents at Hippo.

Do you dispute that?

no dispute, you posted that they did that .I was playing on your word “inspired” , as in scripture, and because of that , felt Trent was more in that line for “table of contents” , almost ex cathedra, with anathema (a must, sure belief for all ecclesia).

 

[benhur]

One of the reasons Jesus gave us the gift of the Catholic church was to bring unity, end disputes (Old and New Testament times) and give us a place to find the truth.

I would suggest checking out some of Scott Hahn’s books, especially Rome Sweet Home or Thomas Howard’s Evangelical is Not Enough.

The more you grow to see the beauty of the Catholic church and learn it’s wisdom found in the Scripture, Magisterium and Tradition you will draw closer to Jesus than you ever dreamed you could, this side of heaven.

Bless you ,you nicely keep exhorting me to your faith.

I do not see a difference in OT and NT as far as dynamic of free will and the need for divine regeneration/enlightenment and differences.(yes different dispensation for nation) /church , and HS)
There was nothing more unifying than a faith shown by circumcision then as baptism does now.

Yet despite desire for unity, Jesus did say the wheat and tares are mixed in, the weak and the strong, mature and immature, the true and the false, on all levels, not just laity.

Hence the caution to “beware”, and to discern and abide closely to the vine, and know His voice in and thru all things ecclesial.

 

[benhur]

The Bible Is Not The Word.Jesus is the Word.
Choose. Christ or the Bible? If you choose the Bible and not Christ, you are not a Christian. You are a Biblician.

Hi Chev
Must disagree strongly from a Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant magisterium.

It is not either or but both. Jesus is the Word just as assuredly as Writ is and just as surely as prophets of old and apostles of old spoke His Word.

Agree, don’t want to be a biblican as well as a churchican. Bibliolotry and churchalotry is wrong.

But as stated ,“bible is all you need” can be taken to be utterly and properly repulsive. Agree. SS does not purport that. Of course you need Jesus and the Holy Spirit and the Ecclesia with all its offices and giftings. Beyond that, it is an authority, accountability issue. You say we kick against your magisterium and its sacred revelation. We say you kick against the final norm of Writ and sacred personal revelation (though we agree to both differently).