What is wrong with this statement?

[po18guy]

****This is a paraphrase of a “Statement” of faith that is on the web:

“We believe that the Bible is the written revelation of God. It is complete and sufficient in all respects. The Scriptures are “God-breathed” and therefore completely and fully authoritative in and of themselves. For their authority, they rely upon no council, creed or church, and are authoritative simply and only because they are the Word of God. The Scriptures, which embody the speaking of God, partake of His Divine authority, His power.”

Frankly, it left me incredulous. You might recognize the source, who may not be exactly a friend of this site. Critique?

 

[JRKH]

****This is a paraphrase of a “Statement” of faith that is on the web:

“We believe that the Bible is the written revelation of God. It is complete and sufficient in all respects. The Scriptures are “God-breathed” and therefore completely and fully authoritative in and of themselves. For their authority, they rely upon no council, creed or church, and are authoritative simply and only because they are the Word of God. The Scriptures, which embody the speaking of God, partake of His Divine authority, His power.”

Frankly, it left me incredulous. You might recognize the source, who may not be exactly a friend of this site. Critique?

Well - I don’t know about a “critique” but I can look at one section and ask a simple question:

…For their authority, they rely upon no council, creed or church, and are authoritative simply and only because they are the Word of God…

SAYS WHO???

Without a Church, a council or creed, how does one know if the books contained in the Bible ARE the word of God as claimed above.
In fact, isn’t the statement above, defining the Bible as the word of God, in itself a creed that must be relied on by it’s adherents to know that the Bible is the Word of God?

Peace
James

 

[John92]

Of course the Scripture is the word of God. But so is the testimony of the Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the Extraordinary Magisterium

Scripture never proclaims sola scriptura; if anything it counters it, warning us of the dangers to be found in interpreting scriptures on our own authority.

 

[scottywolf777]

Ok, this sounds like this very interesting notion some protestants have that the Bible fell out of the sky in King James English and red letters and all. This is about as valid historically as the Da Vinci Code.
The only thing they missed was “if the King James Bible was good enough for Saint Paul, it’s good enough for me.” King James wasn’t born until about 1600 years after Paul was martyred (which ain’t in their Bible) and there was no such thing as English or even close let alone that lovely Elizabethan stuff that Shakespeare used as did King James’ translators.
Who picked out the books of the Bible? Who translated it so they could read it? Who spent their lives copying it by candle light? Who was the first person to print one using movable type? Who put it in English before King James? Who broke it up into nice verses and chapters to make it easy to pound us over the head with?
Drum Roll-CATHOLICS!!! If you can read this book:bible1lease thank a Catholic.
Oh BTW re: self sufficiency of itself. So what does someone of this persuasion do when their computer crashes? What scripture covers that? What if they are kidnapped by North Koreans? What verse covers that? What did Christians do before the Bible was put in it’s current form? Where in theri Bible does it say that you should only rely on the Bible? Second Timothy quote is itself a straw man because there was only the Old Testament at that time and there was arguing over what that contained amoung both Jews and Christians until around 400 AD.
Incidentally the church predates the Bible and is the rock and source of our faith.
BTW even the date of Christmas was given by the church as is Easter and Pentecost. No holidays for these guys.
While these statements might sound crystal clear to some protestants there’s as much historical basis for the Book of Mormon when put in these terms. Sola scriptura was a lie that Martin Luther invented to get himself out of his guilt trip so he could go off and marry a nun that he had the hots for-that is the historical reality.
PS your Bible is missing 8 books put them back where they belong.

 

[jean29]

****This is a paraphrase of a “Statement” of faith that is on the web:

“We believe that the Bible is the written revelation of God. It is complete and sufficient in all respects. The Scriptures are “God-breathed” and therefore completely and fully authoritative in and of themselves. For their authority, they rely upon no council, creed or church, and are authoritative simply and only because they are the Word of God. The Scriptures, which embody the speaking of God, partake of His Divine authority, His power.”

Frankly, it left me incredulous. You might recognize the source, who may not be exactly a friend of this site. Critique?

guy,
2Tim.3:16 reads “ALL scripture is God-breathed and is usful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17. so that the man of God may be thorughly equipped for every good work.”
The Bible is the standard for testing everything that claims to be true. It’s the word of God.

God bless,
jean

 

[allhers]

Jesus left us a Church, the Church compiled the Bible, I guess they forgot that little detail.

 

[jean29]

Ok, this sounds like this very interesting notion some protestants have that the Bible fell out of the sky in King James English and red letters and all. This is about as valid historically as the Da Vinci Code.
The only thing they missed was “if the King James Bible was good enough for Saint Paul, it’s good enough for me.” King James wasn’t born until about 1600 years after Paul was martyred (which ain’t in their Bible) and there was no such thing as English or even close let alone that lovely Elizabethan stuff that Shakespeare used as did King James’ translators.
Who picked out the books of the Bible? Who translated it so they could read it? Who spent their lives copying it by candle light? Who was the first person to print one using movable type? Who put it in English before King James? Who broke it up into nice verses and chapters to make it easy to pound us over the head with?
Drum Roll-CATHOLICS!!! If you can read this book:bible1lease thank a Catholic.
Oh BTW re: self sufficiency of itself. So what does someone of this persuasion do when their computer crashes? What scripture covers that? What if they are kidnapped by North Koreans? What verse covers that? What did Christians do before the Bible was put in it’s current form? Where in theri Bible does it say that you should only rely on the Bible? Second Timothy quote is itself a straw man because there was only the Old Testament at that time and there was arguing over what that contained amoung both Jews and Christians until around 400 AD.
Incidentally the church predates the Bible and is the rock and source of our faith.
BTW even the date of Christmas was given by the church as is Easter and Pentecost. No holidays for these guys.
While these statements might sound crystal clear to some protestants there’s as much historical basis for the Book of Mormon when put in these terms. Sola scriptura was a lie that Martin Luther invented to get himself out of his guilt trip so he could go off and marry a nun that he had the hots for-that is the historical reality.
PS your Bible is missing 8 books put them back where they belong.

scotty,
Did God have anything to do with the Bible? God is in control of the Bibles writings and teaching. The Bible was given to the church, The universial christian church.
God is no respector of persons. God does not show favortism.
Rom.2:11
I don’t understand why catholics get so upset about ‘sola scriptura.’?

btw, Mormons are not christian.

God bless,
jean

 

[allhers]

guy,
2Tim.3:16 reads “ALL scripture is God-breathed and is usful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17. so that the man of God may be thorughly equipped for every good work.”
The Bible is the standard for testing everything that claims to be true. It’s the word of God.

God bless,
jean

Thats right and I noticed it said useful NOT completely sufficient, as is usually implied by one who uses that verse.

 

[po18guy]

guy,
2Tim.3:16 reads “ALL scripture is God-breathed and is usful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17. so that the man of God may be thorughly equipped for every good work.”
The Bible is the standard for testing everything that claims to be true. It’s the word of God.

God bless,
jean

Right you are. “All scripture”, but not “scripture is all”. That is a big difference. The men who wrote scripture never intended it to be the rule of faith, as written words can be twisted, if you believe the Apostle Peter:

2 Peter 3:16
He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Oral teaching (as Jesus used) is perfect, as it corrects any and all misunderstandings at the time of the teaching. That’s why colleges use professors and not just books.

But, what is scripture in the first place? Such communities forget that the “sacred table of contents” was determined by a Catholic Church council. Since the above “statement of faith” mentions scripture as often or even more often than it mentions God Himself, it almost looks like they place scripture on a par with God. That is frighteningly close to bible idolatry.

I assure you that we think far less of our statues!

 

[po18guy]

Well - I don’t know about a “critique” but I can look at one section and ask a simple question: …For their authority, they rely upon no council, creed or church, and are authoritative simply and only because they are the Word of God… SAYS WHO??? Without a Church, a council or creed, how does one know if the books contained in the Bible ARE the word of God as claimed above.
In fact, isn’t the statement above, defining the Bible as the word of God, in itself a creed that must be relied on by it’s adherents to know that the Bible is the Word of God?

Peace
James

Kinda what I was thinking. They took the bible and spat in the face of the Church which compiled it for them. Some gratitude, huh?

As well, they have an entire page of pseudo-creed (which they claim they don’t need), and in it, the word “love” appears exactly once. And it is not God who loves, or is the source of love. It is man. This is twisted!

 

[po18guy]

scotty,
Did God have anything to do with the Bible? God is in control of the Bibles writings and teaching.

He inspired the writing of scripture. You have a bible only because the Bishops and Pope of the Catholic Church council, lead by the Holy Spirit, separated scripture from the vast amount of writings that existed. Under their tutelage by the Holy Spirit, they assembled it all into your bible. Why is the Protoevangelium of James or the Book of Enoch not in the bible? Effort was made to include them. Because the Catholic Church council, lead by the Holy Spirit determined that they were not inspired.

The Bible was given to the church, The universial christian church.

In a way, yes. However, there was no bible for almost 400 years of the Church. Why? Did God want to condemn all who did not have a bible? Of course not! Since Jesus’ return was “delayed”, the Apostles decided to write a few things down. The bible is FAR from complete, and tells us so in several places (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40)

God is no respector of persons. God does not show favortism. Rom.2:11

This refers to Jew or Gentile. Why did Jesus always take Peter, James and John with him and leave the other Apostles behind? Why did Jesus choose Peter to lead the Church?

I don’t understand why catholics get so upset about ‘sola scriptura.’?

Simply because the fruit of sola scriptura is division and disagreement. Such is anti-Christ, since Christ prayed fervently to the Father that we be one (John 17:11). Satan advances when the Body of Christ is divided. That’s why.

btw, Mormons are not christian.

Don’'t let them hear you say this!!!

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

guy,
2Tim.3:16 reads “ALL scripture is God-breathed and is usful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17. so that the man of God may be thorughly equipped for every good work.”

God bless,
jean

Amen Jean. What is your point in showing us in Scripture where it says that it is “useful”? We already know it is “useful” BTW what translation are you using. All mine state, “profitable”.

God bless

 

[JRKH]

guy,
2Tim.3:16 reads “ALL scripture is God-breathed and is usful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17. so that the man of God may be thorughly equipped for every good work.”
The Bible is the standard for testing everything that claims to be true. It’s the word of God.

God bless,
jean

Jean,
I love this verse too, but perhaps not for the same reasons as you.
I find in this verse

1. Support for the teaching authority of the Church.
   (Paul is teaching Timothy (a bishop) how to teach by writing him a letter which was not, at that time, part of “Scripture”. So how is it that Today we accept this as “God Breathed”? This letter was later added to Scripture by the Teaching Authority of the Church.
   This verse is telling Timothy that "ALL Scripture is Useful for -
   Teaching (something that Paul and Timothy did Using Scripture)
   Rebuking, Correcting (things done by the Holy Spirit and by our earthly teachers Using scriptures)
   Training in Righteousness (once again, something that Paul is telling Timothy what to Use scriptures for.)
2. Support for the LXX OT canon, since Paul clearly states “ALL Scripture” is useful…,
   Since Paul did most of his evangelizing in the Greek Speaking world outside of Palistine it follows that “ALL Scripture” must mean the Septuigent.
   When one looks at the chronology of this it should be surprisingly clear.
   Paul, writing a “Non-Scriptural” letter of support and instruction to an individual who is serving in the Greek Speaking world, mentions that ALL Scripture is God Breathed.
   Later this letter, along with the Greek OT which would have been common in Pauls day and place of preaching, is included in the canon of The Bible by The One Universal Christian Church. So - Since the Books of the Septuigent were included in the Bible at the same time as Paul’s letter, it follows that the Septuigent books are “God Breathed”.
   However, 1100 years Later, it is decided by Individual Protestant Leaders (Not acting in council) that “ALL Scripture” in the Bible is Not God breathed and remove parts of the OT.
   Then these same Protestants, who wish to adhere to Sola Scriptura, use Paul’s verse as proof that the Bible is sufficient. So first they change it and then they claim it cannot be changed, pointing to Revelation where it says not to add or subtract a word.
   I cannot, and I don’t see how others can, in good conscience declare that the Bible Alone is sufficient so long as there are two different canons in circulation.
3. A refutation of the notion of Sola fide
   The concluding portion clearly says that this training, rebuking, correcting is all to prepare one “for all good works”. Yet many protestants declare that works are not necessary. If they aren’t, then what is Paul talking about? Why Bother Using Scripture for this purpose if Works are not nesessary?

Pretty important stuff to consider when one is wishing to use this verse to prove SS.

Peace
James

 

[cthulhubryan]

****This is a paraphrase of a “Statement” of faith that is on the web:

“We believe that the Bible is the written revelation of God. It is complete and sufficient in all respects. The Scriptures are “God-breathed” and therefore completely and fully authoritative in and of themselves. For their authority, they rely upon no council, creed or church, and are authoritative simply and only because they are the Word of God. The Scriptures, which embody the speaking of God, partake of His Divine authority, His power.”

This reminds me of a bit from the old TV show “Little Rascals”

Someone asks Spanky what a ruby is and he says “it’s like a diamond” and the other kids nod knowingly until one asks what a diamond is and Spanky says “it’s like a ruby”
at which point all the kids look befuddled but stop questioning the veracity of either rubies or diamonds.

The Bible is clearly the word of God. All rational people can agree upon this. However, the Bible does not exist outside of council or church. Unlike the Torah which was compiled many years ago, there was no Bible per se after the death of Christ. It was only after Christ founded a Church and that Church had councils that the wheat was separated from the chaff and the bible became canon.

Then some 1250 years later the bible was changed without a council but instead by a lone man who later recanted much of what he said.

The Bible does not claim sole authority but only that it is useful for teaching. The Bible extorts us to accept written scripture as well as what is taught by the apostles and their successors (the Magisterium)

 

[JRKH]

This reminds me of a bit from the old TV show “Little Rascals”

Someone asks Spanky what a ruby is and he says “it’s like a diamond” and the other kids nod knowingly until one asks what a diamond is and Spanky says “it’s like a ruby”
at which point all the kids look befuddled but stop questioning the veracity of either rubies or diamonds.

Out of the mouth of babes

The Bible is clearly the word of God. All rational people can agree upon this. However, the Bible does not exist outside of council or church.

But so is the Koran and the Book of Morman the word of God. If you don’t believe me just ask a Muslim or a Morman.

Unlike the Torah which was compiled many years ago, there was no Bible per se after the death of Christ. It was only after Christ founded a Church and that Church had councils that the wheat was separated from the chaff and the bible became canon.

Then some 1250 years later the bible was changed without a council but instead by a lone man who later recanted much of what he said.

A point that needs to be made repeatedly to those who use teh shorter canon.

The Bible does not claim sole authority but only that it is useful for teaching. The Bible extorts us to accept written scripture as well as what is taught by the apostles and their successors (the Magisterium)

I wish I could remember just where it was, I think it was in corinthians, but I was just looking yesterday at a passage where Paul addresses an issue in a letter and then says teh following…“As for other issues, I will address them when I come to you”. In other words, ORALLY.

Peace
James

 

[Graubo3]

****This is a paraphrase of a “Statement” of faith that is on the web:

“We believe that the Bible is the written revelation of God. It is complete and sufficient in all respects. The Scriptures are “God-breathed” and therefore completely and fully authoritative in and of themselves. For their authority, they rely upon no council, creed or church, and are authoritative simply and only because they are the Word of God. The Scriptures, which embody the speaking of God, partake of His Divine authority, His power.”

Sounds like anything goes. I often wondered how heresies and heretics were combatted without the written or compiled NT.

Peace, Graubo

 

[scottywolf777]

I beleive the quote you’re looking for is II Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore continue in the traditions you have recieved from us wether by word of mouth or by letter.
I have that on the back of a t-shirt with a picture of the Vatican on the front.

Kahlil Gibran, a Maronite Catholic tells an interesting story in one of his writtings that illustrates the danger of Scripture read in a vacuum called the “City of the Word” I beleive. In the story a young man is making a pilgrimage to a city where people live by the Bible only and follow every word exactly. When he arrives he is shocked by what he sees. Most of the people are blind or crippled or otherwise maimed. He asked one of the people how this had happened to so many people and the man points to the temple altar with a large Bible sitting on it opened to the passage that states:"If you eye offends you pluck it out, if your hand offends you cut it off etc."cf. Matthew 18:8,9
And how many Christians are willing to do that?If the people making the quote “really” beleived in the Bible ONLY and immeadiately obeyed it without interpretation by a magisterium, creed or council shouldn’t they do just that? Without interpretation you don’t understand this to be a metaphor!

 

[po18guy]

But so is the Koran and the Book of Mormon the word of God. If you don’t believe me just ask a Muslim or a Mormon.

God always uses many authors and many prophets, and His Word must be assembled by the Holy Spirit from their collective works. When a single man claims to have a new revelation, and writes a book by himself, it is a sure sign of trouble.

A point that needs to be made repeatedly to those who use the shorter canon.

You mean the “censored” bible? What was it that ML did not want his followers to hear? Hmmmm???

I wish I could remember just where it was, I think it was in corinthians, but I was just looking yesterday at a passage where Paul addresses an issue in a letter and then says teh following…“As for other issues, I will address them when I come to you”. In other words, ORALLY.

Saint John preferred oral teaching: 2 John 1:12 “I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.”

So scripture itself says that the Apostles preferred the oral tradition to scripture. Scripture itself also says that scripture is incomplete (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40). Jesus Himself said that He was founding a Church (Matthew 16:18) rather than a book. Jesus Himself said that the Church is to solve disputes amongst her members (Matthew 18:15-17) Scripture says that the “Church” is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Time after time scripture says that it is not everything. Yet, many have been lead astray and believe that somehow it is everything.

Where are the written Gospels according to: Simon Peter, Andrew; James son of Zebedee, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot? Were they not also well equipped by Christ for teaching? Why then did they teach only orally? Is there something they knew that bible Christians" don’t? Clearly, yes.

Those who stand by the bible only stand by a part of it. Catholics are blessed in that they can stand by the entirety of scripture.

 

[jean29]

Thats right and I noticed it said useful NOT completely sufficient, as is usually implied by one who uses that verse.

allhers,
Not completely sufficient?
2Tim 3:16 tells us All scripture is God-breathed. Is that sufficient enough?

God bless,
jean

 

[jean29]

God always uses many authors and many prophets, and His Word must be assembled by the Holy Spirit from their collective works. When a single man claims to have a new revelation, and writes a book by himself, it is a sure sign of trouble.
You mean the “censored” bible? What was it that ML did not want his followers to hear? Hmmmm???Saint John preferred oral teaching: 2 John 1:12 “I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.”

So scripture itself says that the Apostles preferred the oral tradition to scripture. Scripture itself also says that scripture is incomplete (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40). Jesus Himself said that He was founding a Church (Matthew 16:18) rather than a book. Jesus Himself said that the Church is to solve disputes amongst her members (Matthew 18:15-17) Scripture says that the “Church” is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Time after time scripture says that it is not everything. Yet, many have been lead astray and believe that somehow it is everything.

Where are the written Gospels according to: Simon Peter, Andrew; James son of Zebedee, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot? Were they not also well equipped by Christ for teaching? Why then did they teach only orally? Is there something they knew that bible Christians" don’t? Clearly, yes.

Those who stand by the bible only stand by a part of it. Catholics are blessed in that they can stand by the entirety of scripture.

Today the Bible is complete.
Reve.22:18 reads "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:
If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book
See verse 19 as well.

God bless,
jean