The Sufficiency Of Bible Revelation

[Protestant101]

I really enjoy studying the Bible. I understand just a wee bit what catholics teach re “Tradition, Magisterium,” and the like, so in this topic, I am interested in exchanging notes on the sufficiency of Bible revelation.

I have a few, brief study notes that I thought would be a good start to the topic, and will look forward to all the replies; either for or against. Please note that I am not at this point using the phrase “sola scriptura.” This is an over-worked term by both reformers and catholics, but for different reasons on the respective sides, I am sure. Therefore, I chose the wording you see in the title of this thread.

THE BIBLE HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE A SUFFICIENT REVELATION TO INSTRUCT US IN THE WAY OF SALVATION

1. It was recognized by Jesus Christ as the all-sufficient source of light:

a.He always appealed to the Bible as the supreme authority for truth - Matt. 4:1-12; Luke 4:1-9

b. He based His faith in Him upon what the Bible said concerning Him - John 5:39, 46, 47; 7:37-39; Luke 24:25-28

2. It was the very basis of the preaching by the apostles:

a. Paul warns against departing from the Bible -
2 Tim. 4:1-6

b. Peter, too, admonishes us to heed the Word of God -
2 Pet. 1:16-20; 3:1-6

3. Think, dear friends:

a. What would the world know about the origin of sin?
Isa. 14:12-17; Ezek. 28:12-18

b. What would we know about creation? - Ps. 33:6, 9; Rom. 1:20; Ps. 19:1-6

c. What would we know about redemption? - 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Matt. 22:29

d. What would we know about the second coming of Christ? - John 14:1-3; Acts 1:9-11

e. What would we know about the state of the dead and the resurrection? - 1 Thess. 4:13-17; 1 Cor. 15:12-57

f. What would we know about the World of Tomorrow? - 2 Pet. 3:13; 1 Cor. 2:9-17; Rev. 21:1-17; 22:1-22

 

[demerzel85]

Its a non-issue really. The Sacred Deposit of Faith is given to the Church, and the Church expresses this in both its written form and oral form. The written form is found in Sacred Scripture and the oral form is found in Sacred Tradition. We only know of the life of Jesus Christ because it is the Church spread the good news. It is also the Church that gives us Sacred Scripture and hence knows how to authentically interpret it. There just is no seperation between the two instances. Here’s what the early Christians have to say about Sacred Scripture.

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, “Who are you? When and whence did you come?” *Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200). *

“Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles.” *Origen, First Principles, 4,1:9 (A.D. 230). *

“The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Churchof Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, ‘He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.’” *Cyprian, Unity of the Church, 6 (A.D. 256). *

“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures…Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart.” *Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350). *

  				"But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition,  						teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord  						gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept." *Athanasius, Four Letters to  							Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).*

 

[Protestant101]

I am sorry; I don’t understand why you made all these references to “heretics.” Can you explain more how your comments relate to the subject at hand? I would really like to hear more.

 

[demerzel85]

Some good articles you may want to refer to…

1. lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=186
2. lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=203

 

[FightingFat]

I think that there are so many protestant denominations, claiming different interpretations, that alone should demonstrate that we cannot glean truth from sola scriptura without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As the Holy father put it: “The one garment of the Lord is torn between the disputing parties, the one Church is divided up into many Churches, every one of which claims more or less insistently to be alone in the right. And so for many people today the Church has become an obstacle to belief. They can no longer see in her anything but the human struggle for power, the petty spectacle of those who, with their claim to administer official Christianity, seem to stand most in the way of the true spirit of Christianity.”

 

[Pug]

“in these last days [He] has spoken to us in His Son.” start of Hebrews

For me, the revelation of God in his Son is more what is called to mind by the word “all” that you use in your poll. Jesus and the bible are not equivalent.

 

[FightingFat]

Yes, the Bible cannot possible contain the fullness of Christ’s teaching!

 

[RyanL]

I’m afraid I couldn’t vote, because without more information the question is too vague. What do you mean by “all sufficient”? I’ll elaborate (source):

MANY Protestants…have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Do I believe Scripture is materially sufficient? I’m not hard-set, but I tend to think that it is. I have yet to find a doctrine of the Church which cannot be supported by Scripture.

Do I believe that Scripture is formally sufficient? Not at all, and the Bible tells us the same. St. Peter said, for example, that St. Paul writes “some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” So you need to bring a “learning” with you to the Scriptures to properly understand them – they don’t explain themselves with crystal clarity, and they can be misunderstood by well-intentioned folks.

An analogy: A Home Depot has all the materials I need to build a house, but if 500 people build houses from materials purchased at Home Depot there will be 500 different designs (though all will probably have a foundation, walls and a roof). If Home Depot was “formally sufficient”, all 500 houses would be identical in every way, not just in the “basics”.

Looking at the various Protestant beliefs, I can’t really say that I see much difference between them and the Home Depot houses. The “basic” Christian beliefs are typically there (think Apostle’s Creed), but there’s nothing close to matching houses. For this reason, I can see no way to support the idea that the Bible is formally sufficient.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[bauerice]

I agree with post #5. If there was such a clear cut answer in Bible alone, why so many denominations? I work with a friend whose (when he goes down home to the hills) family belongs to a snake handling church (it’s in the KJV bible Mark 16).:bigyikes:

 

[Verita]

.

THE BIBLE HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE A SUFFICIENT REVELATION TO INSTRUCT US IN THE WAY OF SALVATION

1. It was recognized by Jesus Christ as the all-sufficient source of light:

a.He always appealed to the Bible as the supreme authority for truth - Matt. 4:1-12; Luke 4:1-9

b. He based His faith in Him upon what the Bible said concerning Him - John 5:39, 46, 47; 7:37-39; Luke 24:25-28

But you must consider that the “Bible” Jesus was referring to was only the Old Testament. There was no New Testament yet.

.
2. It was the very basis of the preaching by the apostles:

a. Paul warns against departing from the Bible -
2 Tim. 4:1-6

b. Peter, too, admonishes us to heed the Word of God -
2 Pet. 1:16-20; 3:1-6

Again, the New Testament did not exist yet. The main teaching method of the Apostles was through the spoken word. Their letters and gospels were merely a written record of their teachings. Also, the Word of God isn’t limited to the written Word of God. Jesus is the true Word of God and his message was passed on completely orally. Everything that the Apostles taught by word is also the Word of God.

.
3. Think, dear friends:

a. What would the world know about the origin of sin?
Isa. 14:12-17; Ezek. 28:12-18

b. What would we know about creation? - Ps. 33:6, 9; Rom. 1:20; Ps. 19:1-6

c. What would we know about redemption? - 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Matt. 22:29

d. What would we know about the second coming of Christ? - John 14:1-3; Acts 1:9-11

e. What would we know about the state of the dead and the resurrection? - 1 Thess. 4:13-17; 1 Cor. 15:12-57

f. What would we know about the World of Tomorrow? - 2 Pet. 3:13; 1 Cor. 2:9-17; Rev. 21:1-17; 22:1-22

Again, the only method that Jesus taught by was oral and it was also the main method of the Apostles. They passed on their message by speaking it, teaching it actively. The Bible is just a record of that. It is not capable of actually teaching. And all of their teaching is preserved in the Catholic Church, not just the parts they happened to write down.

 

[jonfan]

This is an interesting question. Of course we believe in Holy scripture. Also we do believe in tradition. For instance “The Didache” which is the writings of the 12 apostles is an example of oral tradition.

catholicplanet.com/ebooks/didache.htm

 

[Mystophilus]

As good is the Bible is, it remains avowedly incomplete:

And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.
-John 21:25

While it is certainly of great importance, it is not the only source of Truth, nor is it a simple one in itself. I own several Bibles, including a copy of the Vulgate, the LXX, and the Aland Greek NT. On the computer, I have searchable versions of the LXX and the variorum edition of the Greek NT. I would love to have a Tanakh, but I do not yet read Hebrew. On my favourites list are a dozen Bible edition and apocryphal texts sites. I spend a fair amount of time looking up the writings of long-dead theologians.

The reason for all of this is the fact that I do not trust any one source to be perfect: either perfectly accurate or utterly complete. As such, I endeavour to increase the effectiveness of my imperfect understanding by compiling as much data as possible, and sifting through it for the consistencies and inconsistencies.

In the end, however, I am certain that my view of God shall always be incorrect, because I, as a finite mortal, am incapable of ever comprehending the infinite majesty of a transcendent God. This does not worry me, because I also choose to believe in a just God who will forgive fallible mortals for being as fallible as they were made.

 

[Pug]

For some reason I thought it might be nice to add,

How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news! from Romans.

I’m glad the bible has been carefully copied and printed and brought to me some 2000 years later, and that someone actually bought me a copy and tried to answer my questions.

 

[Protestant101]

For some reason I thought it might be nice to add,

How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news! from Romans.

I’m glad the bible has been carefully copied and printed and brought to me some 2000 years later, and that someone actually bought me a copy and tried to answer my questions.

Thanks to all who have responded here. I appreciate it. Just one, general comment for now, as time is limited for today.

I noticed a number of appeals to the fact that there are numerous Protestant denominations, and therefore opinions/doctrines.

All the differing denominations does not mean we cannot believe them just because of that.

I can easily prove from my own library of books here in my office how the same situation exists within the Catholic Church; except it is in a different way. All the different factions within Catholicism still call themselves “Catholic;” whereas, instead of calling themselves “Protestant,” they call themselves their specific denomination. But the factions exist on both sides, nevertheless.

Unofficial writings by many of the faithful on both sides show all the different factions easily. If we extend the rule of thumb portrayed here by the comments re all the different Protestants; then we would have to say the same about the disciples, and what they wrote in the four gospels, and how they looked at “the kingdom of God.”

They all wrote about the same subjects; but they all listed slightly differing views/aspects on same. They actually did have differing “factions” especially evident with Paul & Barnabus.

None of this is reason enough to say we cannot believe what they teach; because as we all know, “all scripture” is good for teaching doctrines.

I see God as, not One who condemns all the different denominations; but Who delights in working with everyone, whatever level of belief and understanding they are at. He is not half as worried about denominations as some of us are. I have actually learned quite a bit from those who differ from me.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Negatively - I can’t see why all Churches, & not the just the Protestant ones, can’t be classed together as disagreeing with each other.​

Positively - the Bible depends for its power upon the Holy Spirit, which is the source of its power to bring men into communion with Christ & to change their lives. The Spirit of God makes it a living thing, and not a dead book. Which is why the interior witness of the Holy Spirit is so necessary - for that witness, and the witness of the Bible to Christ, Who is its Principal Theme, both come from the Holy Spirit. And they cannot be justified or explained to those without them, but only accepted in faith. God’s Gospel needs no propping up by our explanations or arguments - and that includes the Gospel as proclaimed in the Book of God. ##

 

[Ignatius]

I really enjoy studying the Bible.

 

[Ignatius]

I really enjoy studying the Bible. . . .

You don’t have an accurate answer to select in your poll choices. Also, the bible never claims to be all sufficient, in fact, the bible says that not everything is contained in it.

In addition the Catholic doctrine of inerrancy flows very naturally from the Church’s teaching that Scripture is the Word of God. If the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, if it is the Word of God and God is Truth…than all that He says must be truth.

Holy Scripture was declared by and as a result of the Decree of Pope St. Damasus 1 at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D…

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:

***It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. ***
***The list ******of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament. ***
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

---

***The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…***AD 393:
Council of Hippo. "It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
." (canon 36 A.D. 393).

---

The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

***AD 397: ***
***Council of Carthage III. "It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. ***" (canon 47 A.D. 397).

---

May God richly bless and watch over you.

Your brother in Christ.

 

[copland]

I am a former Baptist, and what I had to figure out was… If the Bible was to be the sole authority to my faith, and there was no other authority outside of the Bible, then who had the authority to determine what books were to be in the Bible? The Bible did not fall out of the sky from Heaven one day in the present form, whether Protestant or Catholic Bible. There was an authority who defined what was inspired and what was not, and that was the Catholic Church!

Plus, why is it neccessary that there be authority outside of the Sacred Scriptures that we call God’s Word, which is infallible and without error? Well, we believe that along with the infallible Word of God there is an infallible interpretation of the Word of God, and that does not apply to millions of interpretations that you get in Protestantism concerning major doctrines, but it can only be applied to the One Apostolic Church that has taught the same thing for 2000 years, and that is the Catholic Church!

 

[Zooey]

I am Methodist, and we are taught to use the Bible, Tradition, Experience, & Logic/Common Sense as the 4 sources of truth about faith. So, I had to vote for “other”…After all, knowing what Ignatius of Antioch, for example, had to say in his writings, is an important part of understanding spiritual truths…including how to interpret the Bible

 

[Thal59]

THE BIBLE HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE A SUFFICIENT REVELATION TO INSTRUCT US IN THE WAY OF SALVATION.<<<

I am not sure you can proceed from this very statement. Debates between Catholic and Protestant churches, as well as between Protestant and Protestant churches make it clear that there are many denominations that will exclude mandatory beliefs or actions as the path to salvation that other denominations insist upon. Example: the Jehovah’s Witnesses discourage worship of Jesus and do not recognize him as the fount of salvation, one need only believe in the “ransom” of his death. He is demoted to a sort of lesser God status. Even though most Prots and Catholics do not consider the JWs as Christians, they are a group that derives its self-proclaimed truths from the bible.

It was recognized by Jesus Christ as the all-sufficient source of light<<<

---

Not true. If anything is to be considered the all-sufficient source of light by Christ it would be the Father in whom Christ constantly reminds us that it is not Jesus’ words he speaks but that which the Father speaks to him.

---

>>> It was the very basis of the preaching by the apostles:
Paul warns against departing from the Bible…<<<

As someone has already pointed out, there was no bible in that time - only OT scripture and even then, Saducees and Pharisees differed as to what was truly Scriptural. Also cnsider the fact that Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint at least 73% of the time when they made recourse to scriptures. The Septuagint contains the so-called “apocraphyl” books that Protestants have left out of their KJV bibles. Since the only valid bible that existed from St. Jerome to the reformation was the Catholic bible, why do you not resort to it?

3. Think, dear friends:
a. What would the world know about…<<<

You then infer that without the bible we would know nothing about several topics you proceed to ennumerate. But in the Gospel of John, Jesus did not promise a bible. He promised an advocate, the Holy Spirit, who would “…call to mind all that I have taught you, teach you all new things, guide you into all truth, and be with you forever.”

Without the bible, we would still have the fullness of truth because the Lord promised a personal, perpetual communication between the spirit and the church.

To put it bluntly, it is the bible that is the primary source of division between the various Christian groups. It is because the unlearned and unstable are free to bastardize scriptures, both via poor translations and biased interpretations that there is so much discord between us.

It can be argued that Scripture alone is not sufficient for anything.

Thal59