The Sufficiency Of Bible Revelation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Protestant101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rr1213 said:
Holy Scripture contains all things necessary for the salvation of men. Whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man to be believed as an article of the Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
Click to expand...
RR1213,

That is nice, but again the question returns. If the Presbyterians adopt this stance in the Westminster confession, or this quote (which I assume comes from the Episcopal Church, considering your signature) is maintained, the very nature of it demands that this point be made in Scripture itself. That is the debate of this entire thread. Please show us in Scripture where Scripture is to be the sole, final deposit of faith. Both the aforementioned quotes are a perfect example of traditions of men that the Protestant Church is so upset about with the Catholic Church.
 
Pug said:
“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.
Click to expand...
 
kepha444 said:
Pug;1494374 said:
“in these last days [He]
has spoken to us in His Son.” start of Hebrews
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

Kepha444

In a sense, Jesus and the Bible aren’t equivalent, and in a way they are. They aren’t equivalent in the sense that we worship Christ because He is the one who sacrificed Himself for the remission of our sins. We don’t worship the Bible. They are equivalent in the sense that both Jesus and the Bible are the Word of God.

In addition let’s pose the question, could someone come into the Kingdom of God if they did not have access to the Scriptures. In the Sola Scriptura argument, that would be very hard to do since the Bible is the sole deposit of faith. However, the Catholic Church teaches that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” since we are the earthly body of Christ. In this sense, the Word of God is proclaimed at Mass in the reading of the Scriptures (where Christ is present) and also in the Eucharist (where Christ is also made present).
 
DARichards said:
RR1213,

That is nice, but again the question returns. If the Presbyterians adopt this stance in the Westminster confession, or this quote (which I assume comes from the Episcopal Church, considering your signature) is maintained, the very nature of it demands that this point be made in Scripture itself. That is the debate of this entire thread. Please show us in Scripture where Scripture is to be the sole, final deposit of faith. Both the aforementioned quotes are a perfect example of traditions of men that the Protestant Church is so upset about with the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Protestant Holy Tradition…😉
 
rr1213 said:
Holy Scripture contains all things necessary for the salvation of men. Whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man to be believed as an article of the Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
Click to expand...
Straight from the Catechism, I believe…😉
 
DARichards said:
That still doesn’t answer the question…:nope: :nope:
Click to expand...
Have you no sense of humor, man? 😃

You are correct, my statement was a paraphrase of a portion of the 39 Articles of the Anglican/Episcopal Church. Similar statements, of course, exist in other Reformation documents.

For what it’s worth, below is a bit of an explanation of the matter by W. G. Wilson and J.H. Templeton:

“Our Lord came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it, and the main fault He found with the Scribes was that their traditional explanations had defeated the intention of the Law and nullified it. He went behind tradition to Scripture in the highest sense, the Law itself. While the Church never admitted the special place Judaism assigned to the Law, it followed it in regarding Scripture as the record of revelation and of unique religious authority. Hence our Article emphasizes that ‘Holy Scripture’ (that is, the Canonical Books only) contains sufficient doctrine for salvation ‘so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith’. This declaration was directed against the Roman Catholic Church which at the Council of Trent had placed unwritten tradition on a level with Scripture as a source of doctrine. Our Church respects and values tradition… but if unwritten tradition is given equal authority with Scripture in establishing doctrine, the way is open for unlimited additions to, and perversions of, the ancient Faith.”

episcopalian.org/pbs1928/Articles/AnglicanTeaching/047.htm
 
Zooey said:
Straight from the Catechism, I believe…😉
Click to expand...
You may note that I have a sense of:D humor… And a certain familiarity with the 39 Articles…
And they–like so much else–are, indeed, Protestant tradition…Despite the fact that there are an uncommon number of Protestants who arrive at these shores, with a firm belief that there* is* no such thing…😉 😉 😉
 
Zooey said:
You may note that I have a sense of:D humor… And a certain familiarity with the 39 Articles…
And they–like so much else–are, indeed, Protestant tradition…Despite the fact that there are an uncommon number of Protestants who arrive at these shores, with a firm belief that there* is* no such thing…😉 😉 😉
Click to expand...
I’ve seen enough of your posts to know that you have a well developed sense of humor, Zooey. 🙂 And, as a Methodist, you ought to also have at least a passing familiarity with the 39 Articles!
 
THAT THE BIBLE CONTAINS SUFFICIENT REVELATION…

This is my view of the matter. Say that the Bible does contain everything needed, implicit if not explicit. But, by practical experience we have seen that even though there may be sufficient revelation in the Bible, not everybody has been able to understand that revelation. This is testified to by the wide variety of groups that have wildly different and contradictory interpretations of the same Bible. Therefore, by grim experience it has been proven that the Bible is not sufficient, as a practical matter.
So, what is the solution? First, we must realize where Scripture came from, who wrote it and to whom. First, we know that it was written by the People of God to the People of God. By them and to them, under God’s inspiration. Not to anyone that was not of God’s people. That is, the Bible is for the people who have a covenantal relationship with God. As a group. (Of course even though the Bible itself is for the people of the covenant, the message in the Bible is for everyone.) Hence, if one is not to begin with not already of the covenant, the chances of one misinterpreting the Bible are high.
Peter himself attests to this: “There are things in the writings of Paul that are difficult to understand, that the ignorant and unstable wrest to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the scriptures.”
Who are the ignorant? They are those ignorant of the initial Gospel, the teachings of Jesus. Those not already of the new covenant. They are highly likely to misunderstand, not having the proper background, lacking the foundational teachings for proper comprehension.
And the unstable are those easily swayed, those with “itchy ears,” and eager for “new winds of doctrine.”
Therefore, an isolated individual reading a Gideon bible in the loneliness of his motel room has a high probablility of coming to erroneous conclusions. To his own destruction.
Of course, for a Catholic, being of God’s people, of the New Covenant, means being a member of the Church.
 
Protestant101 said:
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. 😃
Click to expand...
As far as believing what all the different denominations teach, we could, if they did not often teach contradictory doctrines, from the same scriptures. So, unless you want to believe contradictory doctrines at the same time, you have a problem.

I don’t think Paul and Barnabus disagreed on doctrine, but how to implement the teaching of the doctrine. On expediency.

All scripture may be useful for teaching doctrine, that is, for use by someone like Timothy, but not for someone ignorant, nor unstable. Because Peter says, “There are things in the writings of Paul that are difficult to understand, that the untaught and unstable wrest to their own destruction, as they do the rest of scripture.” So, scripture is good and useful if we have been taught and are stable like Timothy, but not if we are ignorant or unstable. Otherwise, scripture can be easily twisted to our own destruction.

Do we want to take that chance?
 
Mystophilus said:
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

👍
Exactly!! I agree with Mystophilus.

That is why we must believe in Sacred Scripture AND Scared Tradition AND the Magisterium to teach us.
“Our faith demands a total commitment, and commitment demands scarifice.”
Click to expand...
 
Jesus said and did and taught MANY things. Some of it was written down in the NT - Sacred Scripture. Some was passed on orally - Sacred Tradition. He also gave the authority to teach, and loose and bind, to Peter and thus to Church - Magisterium. So we must go by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and whatever else the Magisterium teaches us. That is the way God/Jesus set it up.
 
Scripture of course is God-breathed. 1Tim 3:16. Everyone honors Scripture.

However, in spite of this, there are dangers in scripture. Peter points this out: “There are things in the writings of Paul that are difficult to understand, that the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the rest of scripture.”

Scripture itself, then, warns us that it can be used improperly. We can, by using scripture alone, cause our own destruction. Human pride prevents us from thinking that we might be included among the ignorant and unstable. “Not me, Lord!”

The example of the Ethiopian eunuch is instructive. He was humble enough to realize he couldn’t understand by himself. “How can I, unless someone guides me?” He knew his limitations. Do the rest of us?

Who is it then, that can use scripture properly? The often quoted 1Tim 3:16-17 tells us. “All scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

So, the “man of God” is the answer. Not anyone else; certainly not the ignorant and unstable. Now, Paul was directing his remarks to Timothy. Was Timothy ignorant? No, since he had learned scripture from infancy. Plus, he had been taught the Christian gospel by Paul himself. Was Timothy unstable? No, because it is clear Paul had complete confidence in Timothy and trusted him absolutely.

Hence, someone reading for the first time, a Gideon bible in a motel room, is most likely not to fit the description of a man of God as applied to Timothy or someone like him. The probability of twisting scripture in this case is extremely high. That is the danger of sola scriptura, and shows the insufficiency of scripture alone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top