Why don’t Catholics believe that Bible alone is Enough?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chagel_333
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gorgias said:
Nevertheless, the position of the Church is that Scripture is materially sufficient , but not formally sufficient , for knowledge of the revelation of God.
Click to expand...
For sure… Even Adam and Eve knew some things re: God
 
Last edited:
chagel_333 said:
Doesnt Timothy 3:16-17, especially the part that I have bolded show that scripture alone is not only “profitable” but “sufficient”.
Click to expand...
No.

“Dress shirts are profitable for fancy occasions, that a man may be perfectly dressed”. Would you take that to mean that someone is perfectly dressed if they’re wearing nothing but a dress shirt?
 
1cthlctrth said:
Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible alone is enough?
Click to expand...
And… Where in the Bible does is say, “Bible”?

Don’t get us wrong… The Bible is Special… It’s God’s Word…

Not everything which God Is or Says . And it’s very Special.

But it is not God in His Entirety

God Exists in Heaven. He Sustains the parts of The Universe

He’s in the Hearts and Minds of those who allow Him Dwelling

He Saved Folks Before any of His Revelation to Man was put into Written Form

)_
 
Actually Peter says in 2 Peter 3:16 that Paul’s letters were scripture.
 
  1. Scripture, in the strict sense, means only that something is written.
  2. “Inspiration” is the test and writings cannot test other writings or themselves.
  3. However, 2 Peter is contested in the non-Catholic world.
  4. Which of Saint Paul’s letters? (Note that Saint Paul mentioned forged letters in his writings).
As with all such SS threads, I would rather reverse the question so that it makes more sense:

Why do non-Cath/Orth Christians seem to believe that Christ intended for the faith to be handed on by writing? Where is that written?
 
That’s not the point. Before any church or council recognized Paul’s letters as scripture Peter did equating them with the rest of scriptures. Meaning he certainly knew what the rest of scripture was. It seems that there is a belief that scripture was some black hole of the unknown until 397 AD when the CC said it was so.
 
Jesus certainly affirmed the written scriptures as the sole standard and truth for believers by constantly referring to them “it is written” as the basis for all His teaching. Tell me something Jesus referred to or quoted other than scripture for the basis of who He was and why He was here? Never mind all that will come is only found in scripture.
 
Last edited:
Your own quote says that Scripture is PROFITABLE, not that it all sufficient.

Take the following sentence: “Drinking milk is PROFITABLE for good health, increase in nourishment and stamina that a man may perfect in health thoroughly furnished for all athletic activity”, that does not imply that milk alone is sufficient, you can’t simply drink milk while sitting around watching television and expect to be a man PERFECTED in health. Think about it.
 
You wrote

“Jesus certainly affirmed the written scriptures as the sole standard and truth for believers by constantly referring to them “it is written” as the basis for all His teaching. Tell me something Jesus referred to or quoted other than scripture for the basis of who He was and why He was here? Never mind all that will come is only found in scripture.”

The problem with that is that the scriptures Jesus was referring to were the Old Testament Scriptures, Not one word of the New Testament would be written for another several decades. So, unless you believe that the Old Testament Scriptures Alone are sufficient, your argument doesn’t hold waters.
 
The OT scripture is not a problem and was scripture long before the CC said it was. And it was the sole base for Jesus’ authority. It was the proof of who He was and why He was here.

Your second contention is a false argument because God alone is the one who determines when the scriptures will cease. Look God gave a progressive revelation of scripture over an 1800 year period of time. And after each revelation it was sufficient for that time.
 
Gorgias said:
Nevertheless, the position of the Church is that Scripture is materially sufficient , but not formally sufficient , for knowledge of the revelation of God.
Click to expand...
Though it is indeed the position of some Catholics, I don’t believe that to be “the position of the Church”. Would you kindly provide some citations? Thanks.
 
False analogy methinks. He was quoting prior writings to show that He and He alone was the fulfillment of all prophecy.

Did He send a bible, or Apostles?
Did He write anything?
Did He command the writing of anything?

Why is the content of the bible authoritative? Sure, sure it is the written word of God. But who decided that? The Mormons? The Jehovah’s Witnesses? The Westboro Baptist Church?

Who?

From the literally hundreds of writings in circulation, who decided what was in and out? Who decided what was inspired and what was not?

Was it a deeply psychologically troubled monk in Germany? Was it a rebellious man in Switzerland? Was it Jimmy Swaggart? Kenneth Copeland? Was it your pastor? Was it you?

Who?

What did Saint Paul teach - without error - was the “pillar and foundation of Truth”?

What did Saint Paul teach - without error - that the Christian should hold fast to?

I find it exceeding strange that the entire bible applies to Catholics and Orthodox Christians, yet it does not apply to bible Christians. Catholic and orthodox agree 100% on the Deuterocanonical books.

2 Peter 3:16 applies to all Christians, but only Catholic and Orthodox live by it, believe it, trust in it.

Who exempted bible Christians from all of the above passages?

Who indeed?
 
ELCore said:
40.png
Gorgias:
Nevertheless, the position of the Church is that Scripture is materially sufficient , but not formally sufficient , for knowledge of the revelation of God.
Click to expand...
Though it is indeed the position of some Catholics, I don’t believe that to be “the position of the Church”. Would you kindly provide some citations? Thanks.
Click to expand...
While I admit that it’s not a doctrine of the Church, formally declared as such, it’s the position of the Church, as understood from Scripture and magisterial teaching. If you wish to hold to a dissenting opinion, you may, but it doesn’t seem to stand in concert with what the Church teaches.
 
Being profitable does not suggest or support the idea that all understandings of the bible or interpretations are correct, which is absolutely paramount in order "THAT THE MAN OF GOD MAY BE PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS.” So, the “man of God” if he is so, will always look to the understanding of the church, reading Scripture in light of her historical legacy, especially where controversies and disagreements might arise, rather than relying on his own limited and human, private and personal opinion and understanding. The bible, properly understood, is enough.
 
Last edited:
I can dissent all I want from your opinion of the Church’s position. I note you provided no citations. Kindly do so.
 
You need to do a little scholarship, there are many instances where Our Lord showed that “You have said it is written …, but I say to you…”; clearly not OT Scripture alone.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top