The Sufficiency Of Bible Revelation

[VociMike]

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

This verse makes no mention whatsoever about the bible. Rather it speaks of the word of God. The bible is not the entire word of God. In fact, when I read this passage, I think its criticism applies very well to Protestantism.

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

When I see “Word of God” I think of Jesus Christ. When I see people call the bible the Word of God I consider it to be blurring the distinction between God and His revelation to us.

Anyway, once again, the bible is not the entire revelation of God to mankind.

 

[runandsew]

The New Testament was not wirtten until at the earliest 10 years after Christ with the earliest book, and not finished being written until around 60 years later for that last book written. Jesus didn’t tell his deciples to write anything down, he told them to go and teach. The full canon of the New testament was not established until around 350 years after Christ. Until that point there was the oral tradition being suffient for Revelation, at least for the New Testament part of it.
Also Jesus referred to more that just scripture for what the people should listen to, He told the people to listen to what the leaders taught because they sat on the chair of Moses, this would have been an oral tradition of revelation, even if it would have been based upon the Old Testament.
Also there needs to be an unified teaching authority on the Bible, or else there could be 25,000 to 30,000 Bible beliving Churches all claiming to teach what the Bible says, but each teaching something a little different from the others, so in that point the Bible is not sufficent.

 

[Thal59]

Protestant101:

One of the reasons why I am not as active with such debates is that when I offer a substantial amount of evidence for my side of the debate, my counterpart has a tendency to ignore 90% of the questions and observation, and just focus on a few ambiguous details. We could go on forever on a point by point basis…

You say that God was only speaking to Isaiah here, and not to me?<<<

God was speaking to the children of Israel through Isaiah. But the problem here is that you are trying to establish a point from a poor translation. Here is the phrase you have been mentioning…

“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” Isaiah 1:18

Here is the passage from one of my older Catholic bibles.

“And then come, and accuse me, saith the LORD: if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow; if they be red as crimson, they shall be white as wool.”

The expression “accuse me” in the Hebrew is made in the sense of calling someone to account for their promises. When you understand that, you can see the parallel between this verse and Psalms 51:9 “Cleanse me of sin with hyssop, that I may be purified; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.”

So the first 20 verses of Isaiah chapter one speak of the ingratitude of God’s chosen ones, their sins, and a call to repentence. Verse 16 starts out… “Wash yourselves, be clean…” after which God then tells them to “accuse me” or call me to account for the promises I have made and see if I do not accept your repentance and wash your sins clean.

It is fascinating that the very verse you are touting is an example of how the bible alone cannot be sufficient for discerning the truth or meaning of scriptures when the verse in question is a poor translation to start with!

The Scriptures are not a pot-luck deal where we pick and choose what we want out of them.<<<

Protestants have been doing this for almost 500 years.

If God wants to “reason” with Isaiah; why would He not want to also do it with us?<<<

Since we have already seen that the word “reason” is a poor translation, the question is already answered.

Are you saying God does not treat us all the same?<<<

Of course He does not treat everyone the same. Are you a prophet? Can you heal with a touch? Is there a tongue of flame over your head? Have you not read the words… “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

As I said earlier, we can debate endlessly. But if your proposal is correct, and if the Holy Spirit is guiding both you and me into all truth, then why are we in disagreement? Rather than make accusations against each other as to why the other is not being guided by the spirit, let me set for you a simple proposition:

Since you believe that the bible is the sole and final authority, and that it is sufficient regarding truth, etc., what you are then telling me is that Jesus is not divine. That one should not worship Him, and that, in fact, Jesus is actually Michael the Archangel.

Is this correct?

Thal59

 

[Thal59]

BUMP…

I hope you don’t think I am getting impatient, but I would appreciate an answer to my last question. It will help to clarify things as we go.

Thal59

 

[Thal59]

Bump, Bump…

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant101:

Since you believe that the bible is the sole and final authority, and that it is sufficient regarding truth, etc., what you are then telling me is that Jesus is not divine.

Is this correct?

Thal59

I am sorry; I don’t understand the basis of this question. If this was my belief about the Bible, then how would such belief suggest this conclusion/question you have proposed?

You said it yourself, that the “Catholic” interpretation" of the Bible (re Isaiah 1:18) is the “most” “accurate” rendering, and you didn’t mention exactly which version that was so I don’t know how to reply yet. I guess I need you to clue me in more before I can answer your question.

Personally, I think there are too many denominations going around writing their own Bibles. Everyone says theirs is the best, but I have not found the KJV to fall short in anything that is essential for salvation. I find it easiest to understand. I have 13 different Bible versions, and I use them all from time to time to do comparisons and in depth study. (including Catholic Bibles). I have never seen the translation which you mentioned above; and I would need a lot more details on your statement before it would make sense to me.

Thanks for being patient with me! I work very long hours right now, but it is only for a few weeks. It is hard for me to get online some days.

 

[Thal59]

Protestant101, I will take your first comment last. So let me start with the second issue.

You said it yourself, that the “Catholic” interpretation" of the Bible (re Isaiah 1:18) is the “most” “accurate” rendering, and you didn’t mention exactly which version that was so I don’t know how to reply yet. I guess I need you to clue me in more before I can answer your question… I have never seen the translation which you mentioned above; and I would need a lot more details on your statement before it would make sense to me.<<<

The newest bible I have is almost 30 years old. The bible I personally refer to was made in 1950. Its OT is from the Douay-Challoner text, and the NT and Psalms are from the Confraternity text. The verse of Isaiah I gave you from my 1950 bible matches the Douay-Rheims of 1610, while the quote you gave me matches the KJV of 1611…

Douay-Rheims
1:18And then come, and accuse me, saith the Lord: if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow: and if they be red as crimson, they shall be white as wool.

KJ original
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Personally, I think there are too many denominations going around writing their own Bibles.<<<

I agree, and this is part of the problem. Different denominations will taint the bible to reflect their personal beliefs. Now if the bible of a particular denomination has been corrupted, how can sola scriptura or “bible sufficiency” be defended?

Everyone says theirs is the best, but I have not found the KJV to fall short in anything that is essential for salvation. I find it easiest to understand. I have 13 different Bible versions, and I use them all from time to time to do comparisons and in depth study. (including Catholic Bibles)…<<<

The question then becomes, which bible is authorized? From where did King James, an avowed homosexual, receive his authority to commision or validate a bible? The passage from Iasiah that we have discussed shows how a debatable interpretation had caused you to regard it as a support of bible sufficiency when in reality it has nothing to do with it. I could give you other examples if you wish to pursue them.

Still, there must be some doubt in you regarding bible sufficiency when you have stated that you have 13 different bible versions to study from. How do you know which is truthful regarding a certain subject, and which is a dubious translation? Do you believe that God intended for us to endlessly bible study trying to find a truth that many denominations will always argue for or against?

But you are putting the documentary horse before the theological cart. If you believe that the bible is the sole and final authority -sufficient for salvation etc., then you, of course, mean the Catholic bible, don’t you? Or which bible do you give this authority and sufficiency to BEFORE the KJV was complied? Or before the reformation? The only acceptable bible for over 1,100 years before the reformation was the Catholic bible - which was also the first bible.

Now, if the Catholic church was moved by the spirit to compile the first bible, does one not have to accept the notion that it must have been a valid, authorized, and sufficient text? If not, then you are saying that God gave us a bible that was corrupt from the start, or that was at least subject to future corruptions. If this is the case, then no denomination can claim an authorized and sufficient bible. Now if the Catholic bible, which was the only bible for over 1,000 years before the reformation, is valid, then certainly you can see that any bible that is reworded, unaccepted by the church, and bearing a truncated OT cannot be considered either authorized or sufficient.

more…

 

[Thal59]

So, let me now take the first comment of your last post…

I am sorry; I don’t understand the basis of this question. If this was my belief about the Bible, then how would such belief suggest this conclusion/question you have proposed?<<<

My questions relating to Jesus not being divine, not being worshipped, or being in fact Michael the Archangel reflect the belief of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Now, you will probably say… What a minute Thal, I am not a JW. But the point is that the JWs, like yourself, fashion their theology from the bible alone. They too believe that the bible is the sole authority and is sufficient for salvation, etc. But their “interpretation” of the text leads them to conclusions you do not agree with. In fact, many people, Catholic and Protestant, do not consider the JWs as Christians!

Do you see the errancy of your position, Protestant101? I was asking if you believed that Jesus was not divine. You would probably answer no. But this belief that you do not share is held as “gospel truth” by millions of JWs around the world. What makes you certain that they are wrong and you are right? The interpretations of the JWs have gone so far off the mark that most people don’t even consider them Christians - but their beliefs are “based” on the bible. Some Protestant denominations preach that Baptism is mandatory for salvation, others say it is optional. But they all base their belief on the bible alone.

Once again, it all comes down to interpretation. Without the magesterium, which is guided by the Holy Spirit per the words of the Lord in John’s Gospel, to properly determine which books are canonical, which translation is accurate, and which interpretation is valid, the bible alone is sufficient only for causing a multitude of divisions among those who rely on it exclusively.

Thal59

 

[Protestant101]

So, let me now take the first comment of your last post…

I am sorry; I don’t understand the basis of this question. If this was my belief about the Bible, then how would such belief suggest this conclusion/question you have proposed?<<<

Unfortunately, you have nullified most of your postings above to me by saying that I used Isaiah 1:18 to “support Bible sufficiency;” but that is not what I used the text to say. My point there was simply that God does want us to reason with Him, individually, and privately at times; and this “reasoning” is done via His Word, and His Spirit. The Bible that I have is quite sufficient for this reasoning, as evidenced by the ministry of Jesus in same. He constantly engaged people in a reasoning process with Himself by asking questions and getting them to talk to Him. And Jesus always referred to the written Word. Not to a Bishop or a Pope. God did the same thing throughout the OT. God wants to personally talk with and reason with us. King James being or not being a homosexual has no more to do with this than the fact that a number of Catholic Priests are guilty of child/sexual abuse. Both are irrelevant to this Bible topic. These kinds of “facts” are simply man-made apologetics tricks used to cloud over the issue.

I happen to believe that the version you used is quite corrupted. As you asked me, how do you know if it is so accurate? You still have not been able to prove exactly what, regarding salvation, is “insufficient” in the Bible that I use.

And BTW, you have not stated the JW’s case very well. I know some personally, and none of them would agree that you accurately state their belief.

Also, you cannot prove that all “Magisterium” is Bible based.

 

[Blinky]

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

The bible is insufficient to instruct us that the gospel writers were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

 

[Thal59]

Protestant101, you are completely falling apart here.

Unfortunately, you have nullified most of your postings above to me by saying that I used Isaiah 1:18 to “support Bible sufficiency;” but that is not what I used the text to say.<<<

This is an incredibly lame attempt to justify ignoring the many points I have made that you have decided not to address. You then talk circles around yourself with your next sentence…

My point there was simply that God does want us to reason with Him, individually, and privately at times; and this “reasoning” is done via His Word, {i.e. the bible} and His Spirit. The Bible that I have is quite sufficient for this reasoning…<<<

You can try to split hairs after the fact, but you have been attempting to justify the sufficiency of the bible in a number of weak ways, one of wich is Isaiah 1:18.

And Jesus always referred to the written Word.<<<

Wrong again. I have already shown where there were times when Jesus spoke not on what scripture gave him, but on what the Father gave him. And, if you care to take a look at Mattew 23, you will see Jesus speaking to the Pharisees with referrence to the paying of tithes on cooking herbs. This is not found in the written word, it as a part of Jewish historical tradition.

God did the same thing throughout the OT. God wants to personally talk with and reason with us.<<<

Nonsense. God gives us unchangeable truths, and commandments. Or do you believe that God is saying… “Look, I have these commandments I would like you to obey… but if you don’t like all of them, that’s OK, we can talk - let’s break out some coffee and a prune danish and discuss it.”

King James being or not being a homosexual has no more to do with this than the fact that a number of Catholic Priests are guilty of child/sexual abuse. Both are irrelevant to this Bible topic. These kinds of “facts” are simply man-made apologetics tricks used to cloud over the issue.<<<

This is totally relevant to what we are talking about. It regards authority, validity, and interpretation. Catholic priests who have committed abuses are not claiming to be authorized to produce their own bible; King James does. How in heavens name can you accept the notion that God gave authority to a man like King James, who was an avowed homosexual, to produce a valid and incorrupt book (bible) which condemns all manifestations of homosexual behavior!

I happen to believe that the version you used is quite corrupted.<<<

Therein lies the rub. You can claim my bible is corrupt, and I can claim yours is; and there is no way the bible itself can settle the issue. Now, if the bible is insufficient to determine its own authenticity, how can you claim that any version of it is sufficient for anything?

As you asked me, how do you know if it is so accurate? You still have not been able to prove exactly what, regarding salvation, is “insufficient” in the Bible that I use.<<<

I have already proved it several times, but since you do not want to hear it, you will always reject it. You might want to consider rereading my earlier posts, but I would recommend that this time you listen.

And BTW, you have not stated the JW’s case very well. I know some personally, and none of them would agree that you accurately state their belief.<<<

Another lame refutation based on your uneducated opinion. It might interest you to know that over the past month I have had discussions with the local JWs, some of whom I invited into the house for a lengthy discussion. (Believ me, this is not the only time I have chatted with JWs.) The JW belief issues that I offered were exactly what we last talked about.

Also, you cannot prove that all “Magisterium” is Bible based.<<<

I have already proved it! I showed it to you in a previous post when I demonstrated how Jesus established a Spirit guided magesterium starting with the apostles in John chapters 14 and 16. Of course, you never addressed the information I offered. This is the main reason why I lose patience with Protestants. I offer a substantial case for my side of the debate, and the Protestant picks only a few points to discuss - completely ignoring the bulk of the remainder of the body of evidence. Lo, and behold, later, self same Protestant starts asking questions that were answered in the information he ignored earlier.

I understand, Protestant101, that it can be hard to stay focused on a debate, especially when a number of “opponents” chime-in at the same time. But I do know when debate regresses to pointless argument. That point has been reached.

Thal59

 

[mo3]

I have been busy like you. It is hard to work and keep up with everything. Thanks for your interesting posts.

Hmmm. Just as I thought! No one here can explain what truth in my KJV Bible is “insufficent” or “incomplete.”

The following verses explain what truth is not written in the KJV; and therefore making the bible not totally “sufficient” or “complete”:

KJV—2 Thes 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. This verse speaks of “Tradition” which can be taught by word (orally) and which is not found in the bible.
KJV—1 Cor 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
KJV—1 Tim 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
KJV—1 Cor 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
NOTE Faith then cometh by hearing
KJV—Rom 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
KJV—Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
KJV—John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

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

I have read these verses and they do not say or imply that Jesus “always appealed to the Bible as the supreme authority for truth.” In fact read Luke 4:12 as quoted below.

Jesus always said: “It is written;” not “it is spoken” as in Catholic Tradition."

Here is the KJV bible verse which shows this statement is not true:
KJV—Luke 4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

I hope this is helpful. God bless.

 

[believers]

Hi there,

You can add these verses to your notes…

Hbr 4:12
For the Word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

2Ti 3:16
ALL scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Pro 15:10
Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] he that hateth reproof SHALL DIE.

Pro 15:32
He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.

Pro 17:10 A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool.

Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Pro 8:33 Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.

2Ti 2:15 Study (the Word of God) to shew thyself approved unto God

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Hi there,

You can add these verses to your notes…

Hbr 4:12
For the Word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

2Ti 3:16
ALL scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Pro 15:10
Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] he that hateth reproof SHALL DIE.

Pro 15:32
He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.

Pro 17:10 A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool.

Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Pro 8:33 Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God

These verses could only refer to the OT, not the NT as well. How do you know that the Word of God refers to the written, but not the oral one as well?

 

[believers]

These verses could only refer to the OT, not the NT as well. How do you know that the Word of God refers to the written, but not the oral one as well?

The question is, How do you know that these verse are null and void and for old testament only? These verses are Proverbs for man to live by. God does not change… man does.

If I go by your logic… the 10 commandments mean nothing too.

 

[DARichards]

I went through this exact same argument with my Pastor when I was converting to the Catholic Church. These same verses were quoted to me, and these are the problems that I had with these verses:

Hbr 4:12
For the Word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

First, this verse cannot be used to support the formal sufficiency of Scripture. Why? First of all, how do we know that the “Word of God” here is used to describe the Genesis-Revelation 66 book protestant Bible? Is the Bible the only way that the Word of God is transmitted? I think not. Whether the Word of God is transmitted by Scripture or by the Church the Word of God is “quick, powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword…” Paul didn’t define this in this Scripture.

2Ti 3:16
ALL scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:.

Again, this Scripture cannot be used to define the formal sufficiency of Scripture. Remember “context is our friend”. The context in which Paul wrote this Scripture to Timothy is in the fact that Paul was teaching on the training of leaders in the Church. He was not at all teaching on the formal sufficiency of Scripture. In addidtion, at the time 1 Timothy was written the entire canon of Scripture was not even completed. Again, there is no definition of “scripture” given as meaning (Gen-Rev).

Pro 15:10
Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] he that hateth reproof SHALL DIE.:.

I don’t understand how this quote refers to the sufficiency of scripture, please help.

Pro 15:32
He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.

Pro 17:10 A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool.

Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Pro 8:33 Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.

Same as above. As a matter of fact these verses encourage the NON SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE…Notice how in Prov.8:33 the writer says to “Hear instruction…” not read it, or find it in Scripture…remember the New Testament was not even written then…

2Ti 2:15 Study (the Word of God) to shew thyself approved unto God

I stand behind this Scripture 1oo%. We must study the Word of God to show ourselves approved. But this still doesn’t answer the question: Where in Scripture does Scripture itself tell us that our Christian faith is to be SOLEY based ON Genesis-Revelation… Scripture doesn’t even declare to us what books are to be included in it…IT JUST DOESN’T EXIST. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is Un-Historical, Ill-logical, and un-Scriptural…

 

[believers]

I went through this exact same argument with my Pastor when I was converting to the Catholic Church. These same verses were quoted to me, and these are the problems that I had with these verses:

First, this verse cannot be used to support the formal sufficiency of Scripture. Why? First of all, how do we know that the “Word of God” here is used to describe the Genesis-Revelation 66 book protestant Bible? Is the Bible the only way that the Word of God is transmitted? I think not. Whether the Word of God is transmitted by Scripture or by the Church the Word of God is “quick, powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword…” Paul didn’t define this in this Scripture.

Again, this Scripture cannot be used to define the formal sufficiency of Scripture. Remember “context is our friend”. The context in which Paul wrote this Scripture to Timothy is in the fact that Paul was teaching on the training of leaders in the Church. He was not at all teaching on the formal sufficiency of Scripture. In addidtion, at the time 1 Timothy was written the entire canon of Scripture was not even completed. Again, there is no definition of “scripture” given as meaning (Gen-Rev).

I don’t understand how this quote refers to the sufficiency of scripture, please help.

Same as above. As a matter of fact these verses encourage the NON SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE…Notice how in Prov.8:33 the writer says to “Hear instruction…” not read it, or find it in Scripture…remember the New Testament was not even written then…

I stand behind this Scripture 1oo%. We must study the Word of God to show ourselves approved. But this still doesn’t answer the question: Where in Scripture does Scripture itself tell us that our Christian faith is to be SOLEY based ON Genesis-Revelation… Scripture doesn’t even declare to us what books are to be included in it…IT JUST DOESN’T EXIST. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is Un-Historical, Ill-logical, and un-Scriptural…

Hi DA,

Paul was explicit when he said that “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

Why do I believe it applies to the entire Genesis to Revelation? Because I believe that God is sovereign and by faith I believe every Word of God to be true.

Pro 30:5 Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

God created everything. He knows everything. He is not limited by space or time. He can certainly put a book together however He sees fit. And, if someone tampers with His Word correct that person. If that person refuses reproof… well we know what happens.

Pro 15:10
Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] he that hateth reproof shall die.

DA, It appears you’ve rationalized everything to fit your belief. What if you’re wrong in your interpretation? What if those verses mean exactly what they say?

 

[DARichards]

Hi DA,

Paul was explicit when he said that “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

Why do I believe it applies to the entire Genesis to Revelation? Because I believe that God is sovereign and by faith I believe every Word of God to be true.

Pro 30:5 Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

God created everything. He knows everything. He is not limited by space or time. He can certainly put a book together however He sees fit. And, if someone tampers with His Word correct that person. If that person refuses reproof… well we know what happens.

Pro 15:10
Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] he that hateth reproof shall die.

DA, It appears you’ve rationalized everything to fit your belief. What if you’re wrong in your interpretation? What if those verses mean exactly what they say?

Believers,

Let’s break this down one step at a time.

Paul was explicit when he said that “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

I would agree with this statement 1oo%. No argument from me at all.
Let’s look though first at the base of the Protestant Reformation. In the Westminster Confession, (I;VI): " The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."

This all sounds good however, for this statement to be true, then there has to be two principles: 1) There must be a definition infallibly of what comprises Scripture. In other words how do we know that Gen-Rev is the inspired Scripture? The Bible doesn’t proclaim to us what is to be included in Scripture and what is not. As a matter of fact, prior to the Reformation the Catholic Bible was the Bible. All 73 books. Since " All things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture…", where did the Protestants derive (from Scripture) the basis of Scripture, and also removing the 6 deuterocannonical books? It is not there. It is not found. Historically the Earthly Body of Christ (the Catholic Church) led by the Holy Spirit to canonize the 73 books as Scripture. It has not changed until the mid 15oo’s. and (2) Where does the Scripture define the prior stated section of the Westminster Confession. If that is what the Protestants are basing their doctrine of Sola Scriptura on, it seems that that teaching in and of itself would be quite obvious.

Pro 30:5 Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

God created everything. He knows everything. He is not limited by space or time. He can certainly put a book together however He sees fit. And, if someone tampers with His Word correct that person. If that person refuses reproof… well we know what happens.

Pro 15:10
Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] he that hateth reproof shall die.

DA, It appears you’ve rationalized everything to fit your belief. What if you’re wrong in your interpretation? What if those verses mean exactly what they say?

Again, I agree with all these statements. However, if you remember, the Old Testament was not a backer of Sola Scriptura either. The Children of Israel were guided by 2 facts: 1) the Law, or the Torah, and 2) Moses as judge. Remember how the Hebrews had to bring their disputes and concerns before Moses, and what he said was binding. We read in Matthew 2 that Jesus even commanded the Jewish people to obey the rulers when they ruled from the “Chair of Moses”, but not to do what they do… they were hypocrites.

However, these citations again do not maintain a basis for Sola Scriptura.

 

[St.Eric]

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?”

The Bible alone is incomplete because the bible tells us that the bible alone is incomplete:

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
Bible Alone or Bible Plus Tradition?
1 Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
**2 Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter **
**2 Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition **
**Jn 21:25 - not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture **
Mk 13:31 - heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won’t
**Acts 20;35 - Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels **
2Tim 1:13 - follow my sound words; guard the truth
2Tim2:2 - what you heard entrust to faithful men
**2Pet 1:20 - no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation **
2Pet 3:15-16 - Paul’s letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret
1Pet 1:25 - God’s eternal word = word preached to you
Rom 10:17 - faith come from what is heard
1Cor 15:1-2 - being saved if you hold fast to the word I preached
Mk 16:15 - go to the whole world, proclaim gospel to every creature
Mt 23:2-3 - chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you

Tradition Condemned?
1Cor 11:2 - commends them for following Apostolic tradition
2Thess 2:15 - commands them to keep traditions
2Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition

Jesus did not appeal to your bible as the supreme authority- he quoted the Torah- septuagint- which is only found in the Catholic bibles- Luther saw fit to throw those books out of his versions.

 

[DARichards]

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?”

Again, what Jesus used on the Mt. was not an argument for Sola Scriptura. Remember God’s word is powerful, but it is not more powerful than God himself. Christ is the author of Scripture, but at this point, there was not even a canon of Scripture, and also remember in Mt.23, Jesus didn’t condemn, but rather approve of the rulers who ruled from the Seat of Moses (Mt 23:1-5). He said “do whatever they tell you…” This is definetly not Sola Scriptura…