E
exoflare
Guest
These are all unquestionably false, as the Bible did not even exist until well after Jesus walked the earth.
- Status
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
That’s like saying the Founding Fathers did not exist until until 1776 - of course they did; they just happened not to exist in their capacity as the Founding Fathers.
The OT is quoted by Jesus & the Apostles - it didn’t come into existence in 382 (say). The Catholic case against Scriptura Sola regularly confuses recognition of the authority of the parts of the Bible, many of which existed and were regarded as canonical & Scriptural before others were, with recognition of all of the parts of the Bible as a completed collection of writings.A little knowledge of the Fathers makes clear that the canonisation of the NT took place gradually, and that some books were agreed to be Holy Scripture before others - the Synoptic Gospels were received before the Pauline letters, and the Pauline letters were received sooner than Hebrews (in the West) or Revelation (in the East). To this day, the Copts (?) have never accepted Revelation - their canon is 26 books long, not 27. Does it follow that the Church still lacks a complete NT ? Is the CC uncertain of the length of the OT, because some Catholic Churches include 3 & 4 Maccabees in the OT ? By the reasoning of those who say there was no Bible until 382 (or something similar), it should follow.
The argument exalts tradition in theory, while denying it in practice - the customary practice of the various churches of which the surviving canon-lists give evidence.
Those who want to exalt the infallibility of Tradition, also need to explain why different lists do not always agree. It would still have to explain why some Fathers regarded Jubilees as inspired or sacred - & why 1 Enoch 1 seems to be treated as inspired by Jude. If the Bible is inerrant, & if tradition is also inerrant, questions like this need to be answered; there are problems for both Protestant & for Catholic doctrines about the Bible & matters relating to it, such as the theological judgements made about tradition. Maybe the notion of inerrancy needs to be reconsidered. Any doctrine which exalts either Scripture or tradition at the expense of the other, is certain to run into problems - they need each other, instead of either being played off against the other. Neither is of any value with the Holy Spirit anyway, any more than the Church can be - they can only do harm without Him.
The “popular Catholic” position ignores or seems to ignore the 1964 Instruction on the Truth of the Gospels, which gives an outline of the formation of the Catholic tradition which culminated in the formation of the Gospels. All one need do is
- integrate that into the Protestant arguments for the historical priority of the Bible over the Church,
- add the witness of the Fathers to the revelation they witness to
- add what the critical study of the Bible and of the Fathers & of revelation has given Christians
- quote the Westminster Confession of Faith on the perspicuity, and the source of the authority, of Scripture
- add to that the teaching of Dei Verbum;
and one will have the outline of a doctrine of the Bible which deals fairly with the history, theology, interpretation, and many other aspects of these books, instead of sacrificing facts to bad logic or bad history - both of which lead to, or come from, bad theology ##
P
Protestant101
Guest
There are quite a number of cults now that make the claim to better truth than everyone else. Mostly, we see individuals or groups try to convince others how only their church has the correct Bible, or the full version of the Bible, while explaining away everyone else by saying; their Bible, or understanding thereof, is inferior to their’s. This is a common cult tactic to do such a thing and to manipulate the scriptures in this way.
Now, I am not saying that Catholics are a cult; just that some who talk about the Bible do mimick what some cults do.
What I would like to see, which I never yet have is a Catholic who can take my Bible, and show me exactly what in it is “incomplete” or “insufficient.” I don’t want to get caught up in specious debates about whose version was first, or best, or exactly what books are “canonical” or whatever. I use currently, the KJV of the Bible, (the AV) and I would like to request that Catholics here give me a specific list of things that are “insufficient” or “incomplete” in that Book. Instead of nebulous quoting of verses where Jesus says things like
Now, I am not saying that Catholics are a cult; just that some who talk about the Bible do mimick what some cults do.
What I would like to see, which I never yet have is a Catholic who can take my Bible, and show me exactly what in it is “incomplete” or “insufficient.” I don’t want to get caught up in specious debates about whose version was first, or best, or exactly what books are “canonical” or whatever. I use currently, the KJV of the Bible, (the AV) and I would like to request that Catholics here give me a specific list of things that are “insufficient” or “incomplete” in that Book. Instead of nebulous quoting of verses where Jesus says things like
; why not tell me exactly, what is it in the Bible that I use, which is not sufficient or incomplete? I would like detailed explanations of why too.
E
exoflare
Guest
I don’t need a detailed explanation. Right off the bat here are two things that you believe, which CANNOT be found in the Bible:
- A list of which books belong in the Bible in the first place (you just took somebody’s word for it).
- The belief that scripture is sufficient.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Protestant101, how can what you say above be true? The Bible itself wasn’t written until after Christ ascended to Heaven and Peter and Paul likely didn’t read much of Scripture except that which they themselves wrote. At least one of the Gospels weren’t written until after Paul and Peter had been martyred.
Since they were endorsing somethign that was canonized by Sacred Tradition, aren’t they also referring to Sacred Tradition as a component of the Word?
E
exoflare
Guest
So why don’t you tell me which NT book was already written while Jesus walked the earth, then?
P
Protestant101
Guest
What in my Bible is not correct, or is “insufficient?”
P
Protestant101
Guest
As soon as you tell me what in my Bible is “insufficient.”
D
demerzel85
Guest
Well that belief is in the first place found outside the Bible. If one quotes from St Pauls letter to Timothy, in context the sufficiency of scripture referred to in that instance is the OT. In the second place there is not a single verse inside scripture that contains the list of all the books supposed to be in scripture.
E
exoflare
Guest
That reply wasn’t even directed to you. I gave you two direct replies so far, and you have not addressed either one of them.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Your questions infers that it is all-inclusive. In other words, you believe it contains all of and is the the limit of Revelation from God.
This is illogical as the authority that canonized the Bible and the authority that guided the authors are outside the Bible but necessary for the Bible to be what you claim it to be.
Additinally, the natural divine law that preceded the Bible and the continual Providence and Guidance of the Holy Spirit that occurs every day with each one of us is also Sacred Revelation. To exclude these last two examples of Revelation requires you to believe that God gave us the Bible and then quit talking to us and involving Himself in our world. Such an assertion would deny who God is- A God whose love is perfect and everlasting.
T
Thal59
Guest
Interpretation.
If the bible could “interpret itself” as many Protestants believe, there would not be such a multiplicity of Protestant denominations.
Now, if you cannot interpret the bible by use of the bible alone, then the bible is totally insufficient because you have no foundation to validate your interpretation on.
Thal59
P
Protestant101
Guest
Well, since a number of forum participants have stated the objection that the Bible was not written until after Jesus ascended to heaven; lets look at that more in depth. Some of you are saying that what I had posted was “not true.” Therefore, you are saying that the Bible is not true. I quoted some Bible texts, and you say that these are not true? That is quite a claim to be making! If the New Testament says that Jesus made appeals to Scripture as His authority, how can it just be categorically denied like this?
Even if I did believe in all the Apocrypha books, as you do, it would not matter here at all. You won’t even accept the plain declarations of the little bit that I have already referred to here. If you can explain in detail why my statements about those Bible verses are wrong, then I might be convinced. (web links to articles that don’t give the answer will not cut the mustard here. I quoted specific texts that need specific answers).
“It is written” was the watchword of our Lord, (Mat.4:4), and nothing He ever quoted from the OT would have contradicted anything in the New Testament.
P
Protestant101
Guest
Hmmm. Just as I thought! No one here can explain what truth in my KJV Bible is “insufficent” or “incomplete.”
Jesus always appealed to the Bible as the supreme authority for truth - Matt. 4:1-12; Luke 4:1-9.
Jesus always said: “It is written;” not “it is spoken” as in Catholic Tradition." Catholic Tradition did not spring to life until well after Jesus made His personal appeals to the written Word of God.
More than one of the writers of the four Gospels wrote about Jesus’ appeal to Scripture, and it is really interesting to note that some extra details mentioned by Luke do not in the least negate the authority of God’s written Word as our Source of truth.
These texts still “speak” to us today through the written Word. “Tradition” and “Magisterium” have nothing to do with these texts; they are already written down for us. Jesus said these texts, it is not my opinion. You are denying the very Words of Jesus by saying “how can this be true?”
P
Protestant101
Guest
How can you just decide and tell me what I believe or why unless you first ask to clarify?
I did not make this statement anywhere in this topic. If you try to wrest one of my statements to say what YOU think it “really means;” then I have nothing to say to that.
I am saying that what is in the Bible is sufficient. Any other sources of divine revelation given to man, are actually detailed, guess where?
IN THE BIBLE
Therefore, the Bible is indeed sufficient as the final authority on matters of truth and doctrinal beliefs. You cannot prove that Jo.20:25 actually means that Jesus was saying the Bible is insufficient. He did not mean to deny the authority of Scripture. Jesus was not saying there was/is some problem with His own Word. He was saying that there was/is a problem with people’s understanding thereof, and that because of this, He was only revealing enough so that we could be saved. Jesus did not insinuate in this text that there was any further Scripture to be written; because what was there then is even still sufficient for today.
V
vampares
Guest
God is the final authority.
No but we could prove that no amount of scripture is sufficient via scripture.
He fullfilled it.
I have to question the motive of delimiting “divine revelation” and scripture so incesently.
Code:
18 Hear then ye the parable of the sower.
19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the evil one , and snatcheth away that which hath been sown in his heart. This is he that was sown by the way side.
20 And he that was sown upon the rocky places, this is he that heareth the word, and straightway with joy receiveth it;
21 yet hath he not root in himself, but endureth for a while; and when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, straightway he stumbleth.
22 And he that was sown among the thorns, this is he that heareth the word; and the care of the (1) world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. *
23 And he that was sown upon the good ground, this is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; who verily beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
24 Another parable set he before them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man that sowed good seed in his field:
25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed (1) tares also among the wheat, and went away. *
26 But when the blade sprang up and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 And the (1) servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it tares? *
28 And he said unto them, (1) An enemy hath done this. And the (2) servants say unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? *
29 But he saith, Nay; lest haply while ye gather up the tares, ye root up the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn.
P
Protestant101
Guest
Yes, God is the final authority. And he tells us: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” 2Tim.3:16
Scripture is our final authority.
T
thistle
Guest
I’ve only just read this thread.
Are you saying that you believe scripture is the primary authority, the final authority or the only authority.
V
vampares
Guest
Good thing for computers because I’m running out of bibles.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
You keep jumping around and asking two slightly different questions. Sometimes you ask is the Bible sufficient. This question is the Bible enough. Then you ask is the Bible insufficient. This question is asking if the Bible is lacking. I’m sorry but when someone tries to get an answer where the questions are slightly different, assumptions will be made. I apologize for not asking for you to make yourself more clear.
Further more, I never said that anything in Scripture is untrue. It is Truth. I’m confused how you could gather that inference from my words. Please elaborate so I can clarify.
But your last statement is confusing. When Jesus spoke, the only Scripture to which He could refer would have been OT Scripture. Are you saying that this is the only Scripture to which we are to trust? Based on this statement of yours “Jesus always said: “It is written;” not “it is spoken” as in Catholic Tradition.” Catholic Tradition did not spring to life until well after Jesus made His personal appeals to the written Word of God." it appears that maybe that this is your claim that on the written scripture is reliable because when Jesus spoke, it had yet to have been written.
Now, since I still don’t know if your question is “is the Bible sufficient” or “is the Bible insufficient”, in addition to your clarification on which of these is really your question, I would like to ask you a question: Is the Bible all of and is the the limit of Revelation from God? Are there other reliable sources of Divine Revelation?
- Status