Why does the Church teach that the Bible teachings alone are not sufficient for our salvation?

[Ignatius]

Where does the Bible say that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth? I always understood that Jesus was ‘the Way, the Truth and the Life’.

Jesus is The Way, The Truth and The Life and He established His Church as The Pillar and ground of Truth (1 Ti 3:15). . You must always harmonize scripture passages, not present them and contradicting each other. Contrary to many Protestant presentations, Scripture does not contradict Scripture.

Remember that everything Jesus did is for our Salvation, including establishing His Church. Jesus established His Church to bring us to Him for our Salvation, why else would He establish His Church? Do you suppose that He was just wasting His time?

 

[Cruxis117]

Thank you for all your thoughtful responses, wow!

I am going to take a bit of time to read through them and if that is ok, respond. I have, as one poster suggested, been exposed to various points of view that seem very reasonable and truthful and ‘spirit led’ and I am very confused about the role of the hierarchy of the church and its beliefs in itself and its authority.
Can I ask the posters so far, are you saved by the Catholic church, or are you saved by Jesus?

Both. Christ is not to be separated from His Church, anymore than the Head is separated from the Body. Look to the Scripture:

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

Ephesians 5:31-32 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

Thus, we are saved by Jesus, and we are saved by the Church, because Jesus works through His Body to save the souls of all who believe in Him.

 

[Regina_Love]

Both. Christ is not to be separated from His Church, anymore than the Head is separated from the Body. Look to the Scripture:

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

Ephesians 5:31-32 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

Thus, we are saved by Jesus, and we are saved by the Church, because Jesus works through His Body to save the souls of all who believe in Him.

Thank you! Well said.

 

[Zeno11]

Once again, thank you for all your numerous responses which have given me much to reflect upon.
I suppose the thing that bothers me is a common thread throughout all these posts that the Bible is ours because it was given to us by the church, therefore only the church can officially interpret it. But when the gospels and Christ’s teachings were being passed on orally from generation to generation, the church which now calls itself Orthodox, for example, also had these same apostolic teachings. I believe the NT to be the inspired word of God, no matter when it was written down: “The word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). Also the Bible exhorts us to study it and discern it’s meaning for ourselves: Man must exercise his senses upon the Word of God that he might be able to discern between good and evil (Heb. 5:14).

Jesus expected the people of His day to privately interpret the Scriptures. He used such terms as “search the Scriptures” (John 5:39), “have you not read?” (Matt. 12:3; 12:5; 19:4; 21:16,42; 22:31), “is it not written in your law?” (John 10:34; Luke 10:26) which show that the people were obligated to read and interpret the Scriptures. Furthermore, He quoted the Scriptures as the final source of authority (Matt. 22:29-32; Mark 7:9-13) and He always showed the consequences of failing to do so, e.g., “You err, not knowing the Scriptures…” (Matt. 22:29 ), “…Thus making void the word of God through your tradition” (Mark 7:13). Don’t these things show that Jesus wanted and required a private interpretation of Scriptures?
Most posters seem to contend that the church is authority for the Word and not the Word for the church. The Lord is responsible for the preservation of His Word as He said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away: but My Words shall not pass away” (Mark 13:31) . Surely the ‘church’ which Christ is head of means the body of believers in Jesus and not just those who are Catholic? I have read and heard many conflicting interpretations of ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church’ with many saying that the ‘rock’ is not Peter but Peter’s statement ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God’. This also applies to the Orthodox church, surely?

The apostles did not direct people to an infallible interpreter of the Word, but to the Word itself. The passages which require us to test teachers (1 John 4:1; Matt. 7:15-16; Acts 17:11) and to withdraw from those in error (2 John 9-11; Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:6) require a private interpretation. How can we obey these commands without making a private judgment in regard to what is and is not in accord with Scripture? The passages which require study show that we must make a private interpretation (2 Tim. 2:15; 2 Pet. 3:18; Heb. 5:11-14). How can one study the Scriptures without making a private interpretation of Scripture? Actually, every passages in the Bible that is addressed to the individual shows that God wants and expects a private interpretation. God, through His Word, addresses each individual as an intelligent being. Each person is responsible for himself; another cannot decide or act for him. “…Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Phil. 2:12 Catholic Edition RSV). “Therefore every one of us will render an account of himself to God.” (Rom. 14:12).

I am not trying to be contentious but I am wholeheartedly devoted to worshiping God in spirit and in truth :“But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father IN SPIRIT and TRUTH; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”" (John 4:21-24). We are told to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good (1Thessalonians 5:21) as a commandment of God. The Scripture says that the Word of God is Truth (John 1:14) and that Jesus is Truth (Psalms 119:160; John 14:6) incarnate and that the Word of God is a lamp unto my feet (Psalms 119:105). All this seems to point very clearly to our need to study and understand the Scriptures personally until the Lord ‘will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people’ (Hebs 8:10).

One poster said that unless the Bible had been given and interpreted by the church it would just be a sort of blockbuster fantasy! How can we view the living word of God like that unless our faith is not in God but in a human institution? Listen to the apostle Paul, “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:6-12)

 

[Theophorus]

Thank you for all your thoughtful responses, wow!

I am going to take a bit of time to read through them and if that is ok, respond. I have, as one poster suggested, been exposed to various points of view that seem very reasonable and truthful and ‘spirit led’ and I am very confused about the role of the hierarchy of the church and its beliefs in itself and its authority.
Can I ask the posters so far, are you saved by the Catholic church, or are you saved by Jesus?

God willing I will be saved, by keeping the faith and finishing the Race. How? By the Grace of God through his Church. Fortified by the Rites and Sacraments Christ gave this same Church when he set Her up.

 

[JRKH]

Once again, thank you for all your numerous responses which have given me much to reflect upon.

Happy to help…It’s wonderful to get different insights from folks who have also asked these same questions…

I suppose the thing that bothers me is a common thread throughout all these posts that the Bible is ours because it was given to us by the church, therefore only the church can officially interpret it.

This can be troublesome until one begins to delve a bit into the meaning of “Church”…More later…

But when the gospels and Christ’s teachings were being passed on orally from generation to generation, the church which now calls itself Orthodox, for example, also had these same apostolic teachings.

I assume you are referring to the EO Church(es) Our ancient Brothers. Correct me if I am wrong here.
You are quite right…they had the same Scriptures. And if you look at the EO Churches, there beliefs and their structure, you will find a remarkable degree of similarity - up to and including the rejection of Sola Scriptura and “private interpretation”. This reinforces the view that it is the Church, acting authoritatively and in communion, one with the other, is the true apostolic “model”.

I believe the NT to be the inspired word of God, no matter when it was written down: “The word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). Also the Bible exhorts us to study it and discern it’s meaning for ourselves: Man must exercise his senses upon the Word of God that he might be able to discern between good and evil (Heb. 5:14).

Jesus expected the people of His day to privately interpret the Scriptures.

Forgive me for cutting your post off at this point…but I think this is enough to address right now…

In the many references you give, I saw nothing that supports the notion that Jesus promoted “private interpretation”…Yes Jesus DID reference Scripture…Likewise Paul commended the Bareans for their study of Scripture…But neither of these things = “Private interpretation”…
In fact…Peter speaks against it (I can’t recall the ch/vs) in one of his letters.

And in perhaps the greatest example we can have - where different people and groups were at odds over interpretation…the matter was settled by council (Acts 15) and the decision was applicable across the universal Church.

The thing to recognize is what the Church is…and how it’s structure has developed over the centuries - under the guidance of the Spirit - to protect, defend and promulgate the True Gospel.

The Church, the Ekklesia" is all of us and we all have a “say” in things. But of course, having so many voices is going to lead invariably to controversy, disagreement and strife within the body. So - Christ, in His Wisdom gave instructions on how to deal with these things. These instructions, in seed form, are spelled out in Mt 18:15-18. Acts 15 demonstrates further this idea in action.
Of course over time and as the Church grew and various decisions were made, letter written and so forth…better methods needed to be found to gather, store, collate, and disseminate the teachings of the Church. This eventually grew into what we have today through the Vatican.

Likewise, as the Church has grown, those who delve deeply into matters needing answers have grown more “specialized” - from priests and bishops to theologians to men and women schooled in the various sciences, philosophies etc…they all work together seeking the best answers to the various questions that are raised.
These questions are raised - primarily by the “Catholic in the pew” and by our local pastors. The real debates - just like in Antioch - begin at the local level…and depending on the severity, complexity, application to the universal church etc…they wind there way up through the Church as each level offers their insight until…eventually the best, most sound and correct teaching is arrived at. As it says in Acts 15…what “seems Good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”

Ponder on this Beautiful Structure - this universal (catholic) storehouse,clearing house and teaching resource - this fulfillment of the NT call to unity. Now contrast this to the “protestant model” of “private interpretation”. Consider the results of this model…
Multiple churches each claiming to be bible based and each teaching different and sometimes conflicting doctrines. They do not come together in council to resolve the matters…They simply each go their own way…THAT is the fruit of Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation…

Consider carefully what we see at the beginning of Acts…The problem in Antioch…and consider the Two courses open to the faithful.
One follows the “RC/EO” path of Councillor resolution with a unified and universal outcome. The other follows the SS/PI path where each side would denounce the other as wrong and each would set up their own version of “Christian” church.
After pondering on this for a while, I think that you will see that the error that was avoided in Antioch was NOT avoided in the Reformation. Where Antioch maintained unity through the council of Jerusalem, the Reformation split asunder…not just from Rome…but even within itself…

None of the above should be seen as restricting the believer from drawing from Scripture things that are highly applicable to his own life situation…But it should never be done in isolation - and Isolation is what “Private Interpretation” leads to.

Sorry if I have rambled too much here…
Hope some of this helps.

Peace
James

 

[mercygate]

Hi, this is something that has been on my mind more and more, because it contradicts the words of Scripture. For example, 2 Tim. 3:15-17 says, “And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by faith which is Christ Jesus. All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” Thus, the apostle Paul by the inspiration of God, says to Timothy “thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation” and make you “perfect, furnished to every good work.”

Think about it. All the great heresies challenge the Church on this. Every one of them, Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Sabellians . . . etc. claimed that their positions on the nature of God and the Christ were based entirely on Scripture and Scripture alone. Everybody thinks that he has all the answers because his Holy Spirit can beat up our Holy Spirit.

Rom. 1:16 says, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek. James 1:21 says, “…With meekness receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls.” Consequently, the word contained in the Bible is able to save our souls.

The Gospel is not the book of the Gospels we hold in our hand. It is the living Word of God, Christ Jesus, His sacrifice and His salvation. A person who never read a Gospel book in his life would still be saved by the Gospel.

The apostle Paul said we can understand what he wrote. “If yet, you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me towards you: how that, according to revelation, the mystery has been made known to me, as I have written above in few words; as you reading, may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ.” (Eph. 3:2-4). Paul said the mystery had been made know to him by the revelation of God. He then showed that he was writing it e.g., “as I have written above in few words” (in the chapters prior to this) and “as you reading, may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ.” In other words, when we read what he wrote, we can understand what he understood. Paul also said , “For we write nothing to you that you do not read and understand” (2 Cor. 1:13) and “Therefore do not become foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). Thus, the inspired writers taught that we most certainly can understand the Scriptures.

St. Peter, another inspired writer of Scripture had a different view. Referring to Paul’s letters: "There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. (2 Pet. 3:16)

 

[JRKH]

Another thought on this is that, some of the Jews, the Pharisees, even used Scripture to avoid accepting Jesus as Messiah…From John 7…
45 The officers then went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, “Why did you not bring him?” 46 The officers answered, “No man ever spoke like this man!” 47 The Pharisees answered them, “Are you led astray, you also? 48 Have any of the authorities or of the Pharisees believed in him? 49 But this crowd, who do not know the law, are accursed.” 50 Nicode’mus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to them, 51 “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” 52 They replied, “Are you from Galilee too? Search and you will see that no prophet is to rise from Galilee.” 53 They went each to his own house,
Look at how they stand on their knowledge of Scripture to denounce belief. Even when one of their own stands up in defense - using Scripture - they reject him by using another Scripture.
Yet we can see, that all of the OT Scripture points to Christ.
The Pharisees firmly believed they were correct…yet they were wrong…because they were blinded by shortsightedness and a spiritual blindness that others could clearly see.

This same thing can happen to us. As individuals and even as groups. One of the things that makes it difficult for some protestants sometimes is if they start sounding “too Catholic”…others will denounce them. In other words…It doesn’t matter how much sense it makes, if it sounds Catholic, it must be wrong…

Not saying that all protestants are like this…but it does happen…

Peace
James

 

[Cat_Herder]

Once again, thank you for all your numerous responses which have given me much to reflect upon.
I suppose the thing that bothers me is a common thread throughout all these posts that the Bible is ours because it was given to us by the church, therefore only the church can officially interpret it. But when the gospels and Christ’s teachings were being passed on orally from generation to generation, the church which now calls itself Orthodox, for example, also had these same apostolic teachings. I believe the NT to be the inspired word of God, no matter when it was written down: “The word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

WHERE DOES THE BIBLE EVER CALL ITSELF THE WORD OF GOD?

The Word of God is not a book but a person–Jesus Christ.

[BIBLEDRB]John 1:1[/BIBLEDRB]

That the Bible is the written Word of God is not something you can get from the Bible itself–it was decreed by the Catholic Church. I’m sure you immediately think of this verse in reply:

[BIBLEDRB]2 Tim 3:16-17[/BIBLEDRB]

Because Scripture is useful for equipping one to do “every good work” you jump to the conclusion that Scripture alone is sufficient for salvation. But good works don’t save and 'every good work" cannot save you. Well, do you believe that good works are sufficient for salvation? It doesn’t say “every good faith” or “every good grace” now does it?

Isn’t it ironic that the Protestants who point to 2 Tim 3:16-17 as proof that they don’t need the Church to give them Sacred Tradition are the same folks who bash the Church for teaching “works-righteousness?” And what does their proof-text teach about the Bible? That it is sufficient for works-righteousness. NOT that it is sufficient for attaining faith, grace, or salvation.

What’s more, you could look at 2 Timothy 2:20-22. Timothy there uses the same words (pan ergon agathon) which are translated “every good work” in 2Tim 3:16-17, but this time in reference to “shun[ning] youthful passions, and pursu[ing] righteousness, faith, love, and peace.”

[BIBLEDRB]2 Timothy 2:20-22[/BIBLEDRB]

So** IN ADDITION TO THE SCRIPTURES,** you need to shun passions and have righteousness, FAITH, love, and peace in order to be equipped for every good work (see verse 21).

Notice that he does NOT say that you can obtain correct faith from reading the Scriptures. **It’s on the list alongside having the Scriptures; it is something you need to have in addition to having the Scriptures in order to be equipped for every good work. **Let’s say that your mom tells you to go to the grocery store to get the ingredients to make an apple pie. So she tells you “to be equipped to make an apple pie, you need apples, a crust, filling, sugar, cinnamon, flour, milk, and eggs.” If you arrive home with no apples, she is not going to be able to make an apple pie. “But we can get the apples from baking the pie!,” you say. Not according to mom, or common sense for that matter. And if you think you can get correct faith from reading the Scriptures based on 2 Timothy, you are doing the same thing, just with faith instead of apples. Your apple pie is going to be incomplete and so is your equipment to be perfect and to do every good work.

So where are you going to get your faith to have along with the Scriptures to be prepared for every good work? From the elders of the Church.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Jesus expected the people of His day to privately interpret the Scriptures. He used such terms as “search the Scriptures” (John 5:39), “have you not read?” (Matt. 12:3; 12:5; 19:4; 21:16,42; 22:31), “is it not written in your law?” (John 10:34; Luke 10:26) which show that the people were obligated to read and interpret the Scriptures. Furthermore, He quoted the Scriptures as the final source of authority (Matt. 22:29-32; Mark 7:9-13) and He always showed the consequences of failing to do so, e.g., “You err, not knowing the Scriptures…” (Matt. 22:29 ), “…Thus making void the word of God through your tradition” (Mark 7:13). Don’t these things show that Jesus wanted and required a private interpretation of Scriptures?

DO YOU THINK GOD WANTS MILLIONS OF DEAD BABIES?

Why do you think abortion exists? The Catholic Church has always opposed it, but most of the Protestant churches DO NOT and some even FUND AND ENCOURAGE IT based on their private interpretation of the Bible against the Catholic Church.

 

[Cat_Herder]

All this seems to point very clearly to our need to study and understand the Scriptures personally until the Lord ‘will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people’ (Hebs 8:10).

**DOES GOD WANT PEOPLE WHO ARE ILLITERATE, BELOW THE AGE OF REASON, OR MENTALLY INFIRM TO GO TO HELL?
**

During the Middle Ages illiteracy was widespread and the only way to get access to a Bible was through the king’s men–or the Catholic Church. And even then, only the nobles and well-to-do could actually read Latin, which was the only language available. So do you think that God wanted all the poor people who lived during that time to go to hell because they couldn’t do a “private interpretation” of the Bible? Of course not.

In order to hold that they are saved–as is God’s express will as stated in 1 Tim 2:3-4–you are locked into accepting that there was no “apostasy” and that the Gospel AS PROCLAIMED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH back then and now, not anyone’s private revelation, is the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, as further explained here.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Listen to the apostle Paul, “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:6-12)

WHO REALLY TEACHES "A DIFFERENT GOSPEL?"

To call Catholicism “a new and different gospel” is to presuppose that the early Christian church was something else, then APOSTASIZED–lost the truth–and supposedly became Catholic. This argument is an instant loser.

From 33 AD to 1005 AD, that is from Calvary until the Great Schism, 100% of Christianity was capital-C Catholic (99%) or Oriental Orthodox (1%). From the Schism to the Reformation–another 500 years–100% of Christianity was either part of the aforesaid communions or the Eastern Orthodox. There are no other Christians until the 1500s AD.

ALL non-Catholic and non-Orthodox churches reject the authority of both the Catholic and Orthodox churches and all of their Tradition, as do the Mormons.

So the only way you can argue the Reformers or anyone who came after them (e.g. Joseph Smith) were right, is to declare that 100% of Christianity was wrong. We’re not talking about one or two local churches losing its lampstand, because the Protestants weren’t protesting what one or two churches allegedly got wrong. We’re not talking about an ebbing and flowing cycle, because the Protestants were protesting the doctrines that were held everywhere and in every church at the time. For Protestantism or Mormonism to be correct, there must have been a total apostasy, a total departure of the Holy Spirit from the Body of Christ.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

God wills for EVERYONE to come to knowledge of the truth and be saved. There is no way for anyone to come to knowledge of the truth if the whole Church has apostatized. If God is indeed God then He is almighty and more than capable of preventing a total apostasy. Why then would He walk out on His Church and let everyone unfortunate enough to live during the “total apostasy” go to hell (or be denied the celestial kingdom as Mormons claim) for no other reason that simply being unfortunate enough to be born in that time period?

In other words… Is God Love or is He not?

I believe that God is Love and that is why I am a Roman Catholic.

 

[Fragile]

Are you sure about that? The Catechism, citing Lumen Gentium 14 from Vatican II, teaches:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.​

Yea I’m sure, I’d bet my life on it!

 

[Nikicosier]

Let me bring up some points that I ran onto when I was a Bible alone Baptist.

First of all, if the Lord established a church to be ran on the Bible only then He would have begun with providing the Bible first, and then passed out Bibles and made that the way to salvation. But he preached the Good News, and trained His Apostles to be be the leaders of the Church. The Bible became a result of the Church, not the Church being the result of the Bible.

Another point is, the Bible itself absolutely needs an interpreter that has just as much divine inspiration as the very words that it contains within its own pages. That is why Jesus established the Church. That authority of being an interpreter was not given to every believer, but it was given to His Apostles, which in turn has been passed on to those who are successors. If everybody who believes the Bible were given the same authority to interpret the Bible then there would not be heresies, but there would be one unified Church believing the same thing. But the only unified body that has believed the same thing is the Catholic Church.

And the point that was a major thing that led me to Catholicism was this, if the Bible was the complete 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 in the first place? Jesus did not define the canon, nor did the Apostles. But it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon over a period of time in Church Councils.

Interestingly enough, Paul himself seemed to think that unified thought wasn’t necessary, that there were many correct ways to interpret parts of scripture (see Paul’s letters).
Secondly, the Church didn’t create scripture or the Bible. The authority of the Bible is there because God created the Bible. We were merely along for the journey. Just as God inspired the scriptures, he also inspired what went into the Bible.
Also… you are quite correct! Verbal tradition was used in the early church to teach UNTIL it could be recorded in written format. The Bible is authoritative (not denied by the Catholic Church) & has the power of God! Many books of the NT were recognised as Scripture by the apostles and the early church.
And NO… the Canon wasn’t determined by the Catholic Church… the Canon was determined by God. That is the reason we believe it has authority. Otherwise it could be claimed that it is a well penned book by a bunch of authors over a period of time then put together by a bunch of men… which is not a claim we make!

 

[Nikicosier]

There are three sources of authority in the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, all of which are co-equal:

1. Sacred Scripture: (aka, the Bible)
2. Sacred Tradition: (the teachings of Christ and the Apostles not written down, but passed through oral Tradition; see John 21:25 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15).
3. Magisterial Teaching: (the teachings of the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him. There are a variety of ways this can manifest, but all are tied to the authority given to the Church, from Christ and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit).

Oh, and please show me in the Bible, where anyone actually promises us a Bible. The Canon of Sacred Scripture was complied several hundred years after Christ rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. How was the Faith taught in those first few generations of the Church? Answer: Oral teaching.

I hate to point out something very very obvious…
BUT… the Bible as we know it (bound and altogether etc…) may have been compiled later… but the actual Scriptures themselves were NOT! They were circulated in the early church and were recognised as authoritative by early Christians!
I’m not sure that anyone rejects the claim that the early church was taught by tradition etc… but until such time as the teachings were recorded! (In letters, books, etc!)

 

[Cat_Herder]

Interestingly enough, Paul himself seemed to think that unified thought wasn’t necessary, that there were many correct ways to interpret parts of scripture (see Paul’s letters).
Secondly, the Church didn’t create scripture or the Bible. The authority of the Bible is there because God created the Bible. We were merely along for the journey. Just as God inspired the scriptures, he also inspired what went into the Bible.
Also… you are quite correct! Verbal tradition was used in the early church to teach UNTIL it could be recorded in written format. The Bible is authoritative (not denied by the Catholic Church) & has the power of God! Many books of the NT were recognised as Scripture by the apostles and the early church.
And NO… the Canon wasn’t determined by the Catholic Church… the Canon was determined by God. That is the reason we believe it has authority. Otherwise it could be claimed that it is a well penned book by a bunch of authors over a period of time then put together by a bunch of men… which is not a claim we make!

I hate to point out something very very obvious…
BUT… the Bible as we know it (bound and altogether etc…) may have been compiled later… but the actual Scriptures themselves were NOT! They were circulated in the early church and were recognised as authoritative by early Christians!
I’m not sure that anyone rejects the claim that the early church was taught by tradition etc… but until such time as the teachings were recorded! (In letters, books, etc!)

A Methodist pastor once said the same things you did, but the evidence did not stack up for his position.

 

[JRKH]

Paul himself seemed to think that unified thought wasn’t necessary, that there were many correct ways to interpret parts of scripture (see Paul’s letters).

Let’s see what Paul, and others, say about unity:
Rom 15:5-6
May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Cor 1:10
I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
2 Cor 13:11
Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.
Php 1:27
Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,
John 17:20-21
"I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
1 Pet 3:8
Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.
Scripture seems pretty clear on the matter. Jesus prayed that we be one and He and the Father are one…Not much room for “different ways to interpret Scripture” there…
The Holy Spirt, through Paul and Peter., exhorted the faithful to be of “one mind”. “one spirit”, to “agree with each other”, praise with “one voice” etc…
Secondly, the Church didn’t create scripture or the Bible. The authority of the Bible is there because God created the Bible. We were merely along for the journey. Just as God inspired the scriptures, he also inspired what went into the Bible.
Also… you are quite correct! Verbal tradition was used in the early church to teach UNTIL it could be recorded in written format. The Bible is authoritative (not denied by the Catholic Church) & has the power of God! Many books of the NT were recognized as Scripture by the apostles and the early church.
And NO… the Canon wasn’t determined by the Catholic Church… the Canon was determined by God. That is the reason we believe it has authority. Otherwise it could be claimed that it is a well penned book by a bunch of authors over a period of time then put together by a bunch of men… which is not a claim we make!
I am going to perhaps surprise you…But I am going to agree with all you say here. Not because I entirely agree with the way that you express the matter, but because I agree with the gist of it.
We have the Bible in it’s current form because God wills it. I don’t believe that any of my Catholic brothers and sisters would disagree. The only argument we get into is over certain details, such as “Cat herder” deals with in the linked post. But in essence and in Truth it is all God’s work.

BUT - and it is a rather large but…

In recognizing this, and in examining the Scriptures (as the Bereans were commended for doing) we discover that Scripture itself points to a single, unified, visible, authoritative, Spirit guided Church.
Tied to this, is the fact that the two ancient Christian communions, the RC and the EO - even though they are (presently) not in full communion with each other - are amazingly similar in structure and in teaching as it relates to the role of Scripture, Tradition and ekklesial authority

So - In Truth, Even if one takes a Sola Scriptura approach (coupled with looking at Church history in the first millennia) One is led to the inescapable conclusion that Christ instituted an Authoritative Church (authority to “Bind And Loose” - “Whatever”) (Mt 18:15-18)

I hate to point out something very very obvious…
BUT… the Bible as we know it (bound and altogether etc…) may have been compiled later… but the actual Scriptures themselves were NOT! They were circulated in the early church and were recognized as authoritative by early Christians!
I’m not sure that anyone rejects the claim that the early church was taught by tradition etc… but until such time as the teachings were recorded! (In letters, books, etc!)

Agreed…Except that as already pointed out by Cat herder…there were other books, accepted as “Scripture” by some communities that were later rejected by the universal Church in council.
A key thing to remember is that the writing down of these texts did not in any way signal a shift from Church authority to “Scripture alone” authority. If it did, you can be sure that the Church would have recorded this as part of at least one of the early councils.
As it was, the only major issue in the early Church regarding authority was trying to work out the precise role of the Bishop of Rome. It was this problem, not Scripture vs Tradition or authority that led to the Schism - and this is significant when one tries to place the SS (non-authoritative church) position into some sort of historical context.
One simply does not find it…East or West before 1500…

So - in conclusion, we can easily agree on the broad idea that we have the Bible in it’s present form (though with OT variations) because God Wills it. But neither Scripture nor the Spirit guided Ekklesia of the first 1500 years supports a denial of an authoritative Church - with authority to bind and loose - as being the foundation and bulwark of Truth.

Sola Scriptura - actually becomes self defeating because it is not supported by Scripture…

Peace
James

 

[Hamlet123]

Hi, this is something that has been on my mind more and more, because it contradicts the words of Scripture. For example, 2 Tim. 3:15-17 says, “And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by faith which is Christ Jesus. All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” Thus, the apostle Paul by the inspiration of God, says to Timothy “thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation” and make you “perfect, furnished to every good work.”

Rom. 1:16 says, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek. James 1:21 says, “…With meekness receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls.” Consequently, the word contained in the Bible is able to save our souls.

The usual arguments I have heard to support the Church’s position are on our inability to correctly interpret Scripture and on the fact that the Bible does not contain everything that God taught. But this can also easily be disproved by the word of God in the Scriptures!

The apostle Paul said we can understand what he wrote. “If yet, you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me towards you: how that, according to revelation, the mystery has been made known to me, as I have written above in few words; as you reading, may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ.” (Eph. 3:2-4). Paul said the mystery had been made know to him by the revelation of God. He then showed that he was writing it e.g., “as I have written above in few words” (in the chapters prior to this) and “as you reading, may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ.” In other words, when we read what he wrote, we can understand what he understood. Paul also said , “For we write nothing to you that you do not read and understand” (2 Cor. 1:13) and “Therefore do not become foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). Thus, the inspired writers taught that we most certainly can understand the Scriptures.

The Scriptural proof the Church gives to defend their teaching for the Bible not containing everything God taught, is John 20:30. It says, “Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.” But In John 20:30, John simply said that Jesus did many other signs (miracles) which he did record. Notice, though, what John says in the next verse, “…But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” Thus, the apostle clearly shows that he wrote sufficient things to produce the faith which brings life in the name of Jesus. Life in the name of Jesus refers to eternal life and it is obtained by belief in the things written by the inspired writers.

I can understand that the Scriptures do not contain everything Jesus did. John said, “There are, however, many other things that Jesus did; but if every one of these would be written, not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that would have to be written.” (John 21:25). Although we do not have everything Jesus did, we do have every **necessary **thing. We have enough to give us life in His name.

Lastly, the doctrine that the Church is the infallible interpreter of Scripture. The Bible says, “Let God be true, but every man a liar…” (Rom. 3:4). It also warns, “See to it that no one deceives you by philosophy and vain deceit, according to human traditions, according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ.” (Col. 2:8).

I find more and more evidence in the Bible that a lot of what the Church teaches as doctrine is not backed by Scripture and in fact contradicts Scripture, as I have shown above. Are there other Catholics who find this extremely uncomfortable? Can I be a Catholic (have been all my life!) if I don’t accept Church doctrines that contradict Scripture?

I have read the bible over 30 times, have studied the Catechism extensively; I find nothing that contradicts the bible in Catholic teaching. Please provide exambles

 

[DavidWJackson]

Hi, this is something that has been on my mind more and more, because it contradicts the words of Scripture. For example, 2 Tim. 3:15-17 says, “And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by faith which is Christ Jesus. All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” Thus, the apostle Paul by the inspiration of God, says to Timothy “thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation” and make you “perfect, furnished to every good work.”

Rom. 1:16 says, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek. James 1:21 says, “…With meekness receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls.” Consequently, the word contained in the Bible is able to save our souls.

The usual arguments I have heard to support the Church’s position are on our inability to correctly interpret Scripture and on the fact that the Bible does not contain everything that God taught. But this can also easily be disproved by the word of God in the Scriptures!

The apostle Paul said we can understand what he wrote. “If yet, you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me towards you: how that, according to revelation, the mystery has been made known to me, as I have written above in few words; as you reading, may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ.” (Eph. 3:2-4). Paul said the mystery had been made know to him by the revelation of God. He then showed that he was writing it e.g., “as I have written above in few words” (in the chapters prior to this) and “as you reading, may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ.” In other words, when we read what he wrote, we can understand what he understood. Paul also said , “For we write nothing to you that you do not read and understand” (2 Cor. 1:13) and “Therefore do not become foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). Thus, the inspired writers taught that we most certainly can understand the Scriptures.

The Scriptural proof the Church gives to defend their teaching for the Bible not containing everything God taught, is John 20:30. It says, “Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.” But In John 20:30, John simply said that Jesus did many other signs (miracles) which he did record. Notice, though, what John says in the next verse, “…But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” Thus, the apostle clearly shows that he wrote sufficient things to produce the faith which brings life in the name of Jesus. Life in the name of Jesus refers to eternal life and it is obtained by belief in the things written by the inspired writers.

I can understand that the Scriptures do not contain everything Jesus did. John said, “There are, however, many other things that Jesus did; but if every one of these would be written, not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that would have to be written.” (John 21:25). Although we do not have everything Jesus did, we do have every **necessary **thing. We have enough to give us life in His name.

Lastly, the doctrine that the Church is the infallible interpreter of Scripture. The Bible says, “Let God be true, but every man a liar…” (Rom. 3:4). It also warns, “See to it that no one deceives you by philosophy and vain deceit, according to human traditions, according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ.” (Col. 2:8).

I find more and more evidence in the Bible that a lot of what the Church teaches as doctrine is not backed by Scripture and in fact contradicts Scripture, as I have shown above. Are there other Catholics who find this extremely uncomfortable? Can I be a Catholic (have been all my life!) if I don’t accept Church doctrines that contradict Scripture?

One very important thing, we must remember and understand. The New Testament Gospel had not yet been compiled and written when Paul wrote his individual letters. When Paul speaks of Holy Scripture he is speaking of the Old Testament writings. When Paul speaks of the Gospels he is referring to the twelve Apostles and his verbal teachings concerning the new age in Jesus the Christ; Son of man and Son of God, under the inspriation of the Holy Spirit. Once agin the New Testament had not yet been written, so how could Paul be referring to the New Testament? The meaning of the word Gospel to Paul is the teachings of the twevle Apostles from the Holy Spirit.
Scared Tradition within the Catholic Church includes only two things, Holy Scripture and the verbal teachings of the twevle Apostles. All other practices by the faithful within the Catholic Church are simply personal devotions. Edifying for the Soul, but not by any means mandated by the Catholic Church.

 

[brb3]

Hi, this is something that has been on my mind more and more, because it contradicts the words of Scripture. For example, 2 Tim. 3:15-17 says, “And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by faith which is Christ Jesus. All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” Thus, the apostle Paul by the inspiration of God, says to Timothy “thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation” and make you “perfect, furnished to every good work.”

Rom. 1:16 says, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek. James 1:21 says, “…With meekness receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls.” Consequently, the word contained in the Bible is able to save our souls.

The usual arguments I have heard to support the Church’s position are on our inability to correctly interpret Scripture and on the fact that the Bible does not contain everything that God taught. But this can also easily be disproved by the word of God in the Scriptures!

The apostle Paul said we can understand what he wrote. “If yet, you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me towards you: how that, according to revelation, the mystery has been made known to me, as I have written above in few words; as you reading, may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ.” (Eph. 3:2-4). Paul said the mystery had been made know to him by the revelation of God. He then showed that he was writing it e.g., “as I have written above in few words” (in the chapters prior to this) and “as you reading, may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ.” In other words, when we read what he wrote, we can understand what he understood. Paul also said , “For we write nothing to you that you do not read and understand” (2 Cor. 1:13) and “Therefore do not become foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). Thus, the inspired writers taught that we most certainly can understand the Scriptures.

The Scriptural proof the Church gives to defend their teaching for the Bible not containing everything God taught, is John 20:30. It says, “Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.” But In John 20:30, John simply said that Jesus did many other signs (miracles) which he did record. Notice, though, what John says in the next verse, “…But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” Thus, the apostle clearly shows that he wrote sufficient things to produce the faith which brings life in the name of Jesus. Life in the name of Jesus refers to eternal life and it is obtained by belief in the things written by the inspired writers.

I can understand that the Scriptures do not contain everything Jesus did. John said, “There are, however, many other things that Jesus did; but if every one of these would be written, not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that would have to be written.” (John 21:25). Although we do not have everything Jesus did, we do have every **necessary **thing. We have enough to give us life in His name.

Lastly, the doctrine that the Church is the infallible interpreter of Scripture. The Bible says, “Let God be true, but every man a liar…” (Rom. 3:4). It also warns, “See to it that no one deceives you by philosophy and vain deceit, according to human traditions, according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ.” (Col. 2:8).

I find more and more evidence in the Bible that a lot of what the Church teaches as doctrine is not backed by Scripture and in fact contradicts Scripture, as I have shown above. Are there other Catholics who find this extremely uncomfortable? Can I be a Catholic (have been all my life!) if I don’t accept Church doctrines that contradict Scripture?

Your case is well constructed & presented.

Yes, all the necessary knowledge unto Salvation is presented in Sacred Scripture!! The Plan of Salvation is well covered by Sacred Scripture…in every Protestant Bible.

Millions of Sola Scripture Protestants are Saved ----having been Reborn & receiving perseverance graces … & w/o the knowledge of Catholic Church traditions.

Protestants hold much in common with Catholics on scriptural understanding. The Gospel message is fully found in scripture ----no part of it is exclusively found in Catholic traditions …and a lack of knowledge thereof being grounds for their exclusion from heaven.