What could I tell a Fundamentalist in response to his

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cath.orProtes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cath.orProtes

Guest
statement that God has told us everything we “need to know” is in the Bible. Now please look at this from his point of view. He believes in listening to the Bible only. So I would like to respond with scripture if possible.

He said everything pertaining to one’s salvation is clearly revealed in the Bible.

I am going to respond with two “2” things:
  1. Where did God tells us what books consist of the Word of God? (i.e. where has God Word outlined the Table of Contents?)
  2. Where does God tell us which version to use (he is a King James Onlyist, so I would like to know where God instructs him to use that version)
However, that is all I have. Can anyone supply anything else?
 
Well, you can start by asking him how the early Christians of the first couple of centuries were able to keep the faith without the Bible. The letters and gospels were there, but they were not compliled into what we now know as the New Testament. There were numerous gospels and letters in circulation at the time. Also, since the majority of the population was illiterate, who read these things to them?
 
  1. Because the bible was not compiled until the 4th century by the Catholic church, no where in the bible could it have said that the Bible is all we need. It simply didn’t exist at the time of the authors’ writings.
  2. Nowhere in the bible does it say that “the Bible is the only thing we need”.
  3. The church that compiled the bible, the Catholic Church, made it very clear from the beginning that the Bible along with Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium was what we needed.
  4. Paul refers to many non-written things we must adhere to.
  5. Most Christians did not have access to bibles, due to poor printing technology, for 1500 to 1800 years.
  6. The belief of the “Bible alone” was never a Christian belief until the Reformation in the 1500s.
  7. When “the Bible Alone” theory came into being, it split the Christian church into thousands of different denominations with different interpretations and doctrines.
 
Cath.orProtes.?:
statement that God has told us everything we “need to know” is in the Bible. Now please look at this from his point of view. He believes in listening to the Bible only. So I would like to respond with scripture if possible.

He said everything pertaining to one’s salvation is clearly revealed in the Bible.

I am going to respond with two “2” things:
  1. Where did God tells us what books consist of the Word of God? (i.e. where has God Word outlined the Table of Contents?)
  2. Where does God tell us which version to use (he is a King James Onlyist, so I would like to know where God instructs him to use that version)
However, that is all I have. Can anyone supply anything else?
Click to expand...
John 21:25
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
 
Not only does the Bible not say that it is the only authority, it explicitly tells us to stick to both oral and written tradition.

2 Thess. 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

See the catholic Answers track on Scripture and Tradition.
 
I am not going to give a answer to the problem but an insight from experience and study, which might help in your dialogue.

This person doesn’t really care about 100% truth but in their personal truth, which is understandable since most of us are taught to be true to ourselves first, before God.
This is the sticking point because to release the hold of Sola Scriptura you have to trust God first, but some want the proof before the trust.

This is something to remember as most times people who are taught Sola Scriptura are taught to believe in their own interpretation led by the Holy Spirit. They are ingrained to distrust any outside interpretation as man-made even though their own interpretation is ignored as man-made. So clear understanding is made to be a bad thing and to be rejected. It is common to hear “I don’t believe in religion but a relationship.”

A relationship created by God has absolute truth and must be submitted to while a man made one is individual. We don’t love our spouses under our interpretation and our terms but we must submit to certain conditions to a proper relationship.
His Bible is different from the Catholic one, so which one to use? Was there no absolute truth before the new one was created in the reformation? Did God not reveal truth in a clear way?

There, hopefully my rambling on will help in your discussion

God Bless
Scylla
 
We could sit and post verses that take the for and against position on tradition being equal to the Bible but we need to understand more than just the words, what are they saying? The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it “transgresses the commands of God” (Matt. 15:3). Nowhere does the teaching of tradition in the Bible allow the addition of what has already been taught by the Apostles.

Even Jesus used the Bible as the final rule of authority. The Devil tempted Jesus and Jesus turned to the scriptures, not tradition or even his own authority. The New Testament writers constantly did the same thing (Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19; Acts 17:11).
 
Nothing in the Bible contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church. None of the Catholic Church’s traditions are contradicted by the Bible when the original interpretation is applied.

When we rely on only the Bible and individual interpretations we end up with thousands of denominations. This can’t be the work of the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit won’t contradict Himself by leading two people to different conclusions.
 
BEnQ,

I am having a hard time understanding what you are saying. You said Jesus used the Bible? It had not been written yet. Not until the 4th century had it been compiled. Be careful to say that Jesus used the Old Testament, not the Bible.
 
You could start by getting a grip on the difference between material and formal sufficiency.

Many Catholics agree that the Bible is materially sufficient – i.e., contains seeds within it of all we need to know – to guide us but that it does not explicitly (formally) lay out in detail all the specifics, hence the charism entrusted to the Church to authenticate the interpretation of Scripture.
 
40.png
BenQ:
we need to understand more than just the words,
Click to expand...
Exactly! We need to understand how those “words” are interpreted. 👍
 
40.png
Pjs2ejs:
BEnQ,

I am having a hard time understanding what you are saying. You said Jesus used the Bible? It had not been written yet. Not until the 4th century had it been compiled. Be careful to say that Jesus used the Old Testament, not the Bible.
Click to expand...
“The Scriptures” then. Either way, it’s the inspired Word of God.
 
Cath.orProtes.?:
statement that God has told us everything we “need to know” is in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Agree with this with one snag: just because it is in the bible does not mean it is clear to all who read the bible. I can think of 2 instances where the bible itself refers to Scripture as being difficult to understand: I believe it was Philip who approached the eunoch who said, “How can I understand it (Scripture) unless someone teaches it to me?” or something along those lines. The other reference is in 1Peter where Peter describes Pauls letters as “hard” to understand.
In addition - and most glaring, is the difference of opinion on various topics among various “bible alone” denominations. How does he account for all these differing opinions from the “clear, Holy Spirit led” reading of the bible? Have him pick 5 topics: Necessity of Baptism, Validity of Infant Baptism, Necessity of going to Church on Sunday, Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the ONGOING need to confess our sins. Once he commits to his positions, go research the different views of Lutherans, Presbyterians, Evangelical, Calvinist, etc, etc, all coming from “bible alone” interpretations. How can this be if what he says is true?
Cath.orProtes.?:
Now please look at this from his point of view. He believes in listening to the Bible only. So I would like to respond with scripture if possible.
Click to expand...
I understand his point of view perfectly, and it is a distorted view. Absolutely do not allow him to establish any rule without justification. Why is the Bible the only book to consider? There are several “Bibles” - which one is the correct Bible, and how do we know? Whatever source he sights, make sure that the Bible confirms that choice - if not, he has already contradicted himself.
The original KJV had the deuterocanonicals in it - are they included? If not, by what authority are they being excluded and doesn’t such an exclusion make that authority to supercede the bible?
Cath.orProtes.?:
He said everything pertaining to one’s salvation is clearly revealed in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Oh its very clear alright - he just misunderstands it.
“Unless you are born of water and the holy spirit you have no life in you.” John 3-5 Please have him tell us exactly what “born of water” means. Compare it to his response to the necessity of baptism - any problems?
John 6 “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you.” What is the clear meaning of this statement? Again, compare to his answer on the Lords Supper from above.
Cath.orProtes.?:
However, that is all I have. Can anyone supply anything else?
Click to expand...
 
40.png
BenQ:
Even Jesus used the Bible as the final rule of authority. The Devil tempted Jesus and Jesus turned to the scriptures, not tradition or even his own authority. The New Testament writers constantly did the same thing (Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19; Acts 17:11).
Click to expand...
How could Jesus use the bible? All they had then was the old testament, so in that case if he wanted us to only go by the scriptures and not written or oral tradition, then we would have no new testament. In the new testament it says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. So that tells me that that is where the truth comes from. I accept the bible because the books in it were put together by the Church. So while the bible contains truth, I have it to read thanks to the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. Besides there are instances in the New Testament where they talked about things that aren’t even in old testament scriptures (such as Jude 1:9 and 14-15). How did those people accept these things as truth if they weren’t in the scriptures as they knew it? How can WE reconcile it ourselves? It only makes sense if you accept that there was also a living, teaching authority. They obviously accepted other things as truth that were not in the old testament scriptures.
 
Jesus didn’t use the Scriptures as final authority, He was the final authority Himself. His sermons and parables were not quotes of Scripture. Everything that came out of His mouth and all of His actions were new public revelation. Some would be written down and some would not be; but it’s all authoritative revelation.

Also, there is a false dichotmy that is often drawn between Scripture and Tradtion. Neither has weight over the other, because neither needs weight over the other since they never contradict. They work in intimate harmony. 👍
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Also, there is a false dichotmy that is often drawn between Scripture and Tradtion. Neither has weight over the other, because neither needs weight over the other since they never contradict. They work in intimate harmony. 👍
Click to expand...
:amen:
 
I would also ask,

The Early Church had two versions of the Gospel of Matthew, one with 16 chapters, one with 28. Where in the Bible does it say which version was correct?

Several of the Communities in the Early Church considered the Epistle of Barnabas to be Inspired Scripture. How did later Church know it was not?
 
40.png
Maranatha:
Not only does the Bible not say that it is the only authority, it explicitly tells us to stick to both oral and written tradition.

2 Thess. 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

See the catholic Answers track on Scripture and Tradition.
Click to expand...
Paul also writes in 2 Tim. 14-15,

“But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”

Of course, Paul is referring here to what we know as the Old Testament, as not all of the New Testament had even been written at the time yet. So, if this passage proves anything, it proves too much (i.e. it “proves” that the Old Testament by itself is sufficient.

Also check out ScriptureCatholic.com’s Scripture Alone page.
 
40.png
BenQ:
Even Jesus used the Bible as the final rule of authority. The Devil tempted Jesus and Jesus turned to the scriptures, not tradition or even his own authority.** The New Testament writers constantly did the same thing (Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19; Acts 17:11).
Click to expand...
So Jesus submitted to a teaching authority for doctrine? Er…Jesus is God…

-ACEGC
 
Cath.orProtes.?:
statement that God has told us everything we “need to know” is in the Bible. Now please look at this from his point of view. He believes in listening to the Bible only. So I would like to respond with scripture if possible.

He said everything pertaining to one’s salvation is clearly revealed in the Bible.

I am going to respond with two “2” things:
  1. Where did God tells us what books consist of the Word of God? (i.e. where has God Word outlined the Table of Contents?)
  2. Where does God tell us which version to use (he is a King James Onlyist, so I would like to know where God instructs him to use that version)
However, that is all I have. Can anyone supply anything else?
Click to expand...
Clearly God speaks in King James English because the Book of Mormon is in King James English.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top