Posted on 03/15/2004 6:40:12 PM PST by narses
Yet, you still haven't demonstrated that word = The Bible.
In the end, my point is that you will find no foundation in any version of the Bible that supports the argument of "scripture only" or "only the scripture contained within the Bible" or "that the Bible is the end all of scripture" or "that the scripture contained within the Bible is enough" or anything of that nature.
Also, if we are to accept your suggested line of reasoning, it shouldn't matter, then, how much or how little of the scripture contained within the Bible a person chooses to accept.
pseudogratix @ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
What I read in this is "Write, therefore, what you have seen." It doesn't say "what I taught," or "what you heard."
Revelation is one part of the NT that is really difficult to swallow because, for one, it was written at or after 100 AD and, two it is more "kabbalistic" then anything else in the NT. Honestly, I am still struggling with it.
Nonetheless, the quote you give speaks of something no other NT text mentions and also does not address hearing and teaching but seeing.
If writing everything they have seen is what Lord commanded, all the Apostles are in contempt of Lord's wishes, by default!
However, the quote you give is grammatically in the present tense and not in the past. The present in this is case is still in the future, whereas you are using it as something in the past.
Bible-quoting has a way of giving in to rationalizations, and this is a perfect example of it. While it is true that the text itself is not corrupt, the interpretation of it is a human progeny and is therefore inherently corrupt. That's one more reason for not following sola scriptura, but relying, instead, on collective and not individual interpretation as the closest thing to correct understanding.
I am glad you posted this, although it is off the main topic, because it touches on the very essence of faith -- which seems to be hope and not the glory of God.
Christianity's strongest argument is that Jesus rose form the dead. Well, of course He did! He is God, although He suffered and died as a Man, He never ceased to be God.
The promise of Christianity of the eternal life is a powerful motivator to believe. Other religions have similar promises, but we have evidence through Gospels and in the NT collectively of that. The NT speaks of eye-witnesses to His resurrection, whereas other religions don't have that. Also, Christianity has an image of God in human form so that we can relate to Him on human level and identify with Him.
But, without the promise of the eternal life, Christianity would -- for all its message of love and glory of God -- probably not have nearly as many adherents as it has. In other words, the faith is not in God, but in "what's in it for me?"
It is conditional, based on I-give-you-and-you-give-me. The faith is not based on just glorifying God and thanking Him for the privilege and honor of seeing His Creation, but instead on "rewards" for being faithful.
He says that the bread and the wine 'are' His body and blood.
The understanding of the Eucharist goes back to the beginning of the 2nd century (Inrenaeus) and throughout the early Church. The Orthodox Church refres to the "alteration" or "change" from bread in the Body and Blood by invocation of the Holy Ghost, treating it as a "Mystery" as all Sacraments are. The Catholic Church shared that teaching, but eventually went one step further and made it into a dogma in a process that spanned several hundred years (13th to 16th century).
Lutheran Church holds on to a teaching of consubstantiation, related but essentially different from the Orthodox alteration/change and Catholic transubstantiation, in that the bread and wine remain bread and wine in which Jesus' Body and Blood "enter" the profane substances and "co-exist" with them. The Anglican Church speaks of "Real Presence" but doesn't elaborate.
These Orthodox/Catholic concepts of the Original Church evolved from the logical and necessary conclusion that not all bread and wine are His Body and Blood, but only this bread and wine. Obviously, this refers to the bread and wine at Lord's Supper, which is celebrated in Holy Liturgy (Eucharist).
Obviously, neither the bread nor the wine was His Body or Blood until He said so -- at which point it was.
He also didn't say "This is bread and my Body..." but simply "This is my Body..." Obviously, the bread ceased to be bread, and the wine ceased to be wine.
They appear to us as bread and wine for obvious palatable reasons, and one can think of those characteristics as illusionary or, as Catholics call them physical "accidents," but the appearance and substance are not the same.
So, it is clear that neither the Eucharistic bread remains bread, nor Eucharistic wine wine, and it is also clear that not all bread and not all wine are His Body and Blood.
The message behind this is to think and not just read.
Except, as I have pointed out and as you have not refuted, without tradition you would not know which books belong in scripture and which books didn't. Furthermore, you are incorrect about Jesus, Paul, and the other Apostles. They were preaching (in part) new tradition. Books were written later, based on the tradition they preached.
So it's just an assumption on your part that he received the keys? Nothing to substantiate your claim.
Now I know why you avoided answering my other questions.
You are playing games.
The "word" or "command" used in this verse clearly indicates at least part of the OT. According to Solomon, if you despise it you will be destroyed.
"He who despises the word will be destroyed,
But he who fears the commandment will be rewarded."
Proverbs 13
***In the end, my point is that you will find no foundation in any version of the Bible that supports the argument of "scripture only"...or "that the scripture contained within the Bible is enough" or anything of that nature.***
Your point is refuted by the following passages...
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
According to Paul the scriptures were sufficient to bring Timothy to salvation - and to make his completely equiped for a life that pleased God.
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."
According to Luke, if we read his work (Luke/Acts) we can hace complete certainty about the events that transpired in the life of Jesus and the early church.
We don't need the New Testament then! Back when Paul was writing, "sciptures" meant the Septuagint.
Perhaps. But no matter how you slice it, there is no way to infer this is in reference to "the Bible as we have it today." Sure, it refers to the scripture existing in that day. I am not arguing with that point. My point is that this in no way establishes any of your assertions regarding "the Bible as we have it today."
Your point is refuted by the following passages...
2 Timothy 3:16-17 does indeed teach about "scripture in general," but he makes no argument about the scriptures being all that is necessary and certainly makes argument about the Bible. You keep assuming that "scripture" equals "The Bible."
You appear to be trying to formulate doctrine first and then finding scriptures to support it later as opposed to formulating doctrine from that which is contained in the scriptures. If that is the way you choose to go about it, fine. However, that only underscores the assertion that the "Bible only" position contradicts itself.
According to Luke, if we read his work (Luke/Acts) we can have complete certainty about the events that transpired in the life of Jesus and the early church.
This has nothing to do with your assertions regarding the "Bible being all that we need" or "that scripture contained within the Bible has we have it today is the only valid scripture" or so forth.
Sorry, my friend, but you have done nothing to support your position. The problem is, of course, that the Bible is never referred to by the Bible itself. Yes, there are many references to scripture, law, word, and the like. Yet, the writers of the Bible didn't compile the Bible. This was done much later. As such, they never referred to the Bible as we know it today. As such, there are no assertions about the Bible included inside the Bible itself. As such, in order to support a "Bible only" position you need to rely on extrabiblical material. And, in the act of doing so, you will merely demonstrate that the "Bible only" position is contradictive.
correction: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does indeed teach about "scripture in general," but Paul makes no argument about the scriptures being all that is necessary and certainly makes no argument about the Bible. You seem to keep assuming that "scripture" equals "The Bible."
***What I read in this is "Write, therefore, what you have seen." It doesn't say "what I taught," or "what you heard."***
True, but the first argument in this thread was...
"Did Our Lord write any part of the New Testament or command His Apostles to do so?"
...which you included in your post #297. This is refuted by the Revelation passage. Notice the above question does not mention that it had to be something the writer "heard" or was "taught" just something that they were "commanded" to write.
***Nonetheless, the quote you give speaks of something no other NT text mentions and also does not address hearing and teaching but seeing. ***
But consider the following...
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete." I John
***If writing everything they have seen is what Lord commanded, all the Apostles are in contempt of Lord's wishes, by default!***
That was not the argument made by the initial post and not the argument I was refuting. The question was "Did the Lord command any part of the NT to be written?" which is refuted by the "Therefore, write..." of Rev 1. I would never argue that the Lord commanded them to write everything they had seen.
********************
***Bible-quoting has a way of giving in to rationalizations, and this is a perfect example of it. While it is true that the text itself is not corrupt, the interpretation of it is a human progeny and is therefore inherently corrupt. That's one more reason for not following sola scriptura, but relying, instead, on collective and not individual interpretation as the closest thing to correct understanding.***
I certainly understand what you are saying and to a large part agree. The danger is falling into a private or secret interpretation such a Peter warns of when he says,
"knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation."
This is the "Charles Manson" method of interpretation, i.e. an interpretation that revolves around your own little world. This is what Manson and his group fell into when they started to the portions of the Revelation speak to them personally as if they were the fulfillment of this prophesy.
***That's one more reason for not following sola scriptura, but relying, instead, on collective and not individual interpretation as the closest thing to correct understanding***
Part of the definition of Sola Scriptura is that scripture is "perspicacious" or clear in all it's major doctrines. It's also put this way, "The plain things are the main things and the main things are the plain things."
Part of the promise of the New Covenant which Jeremiah prophesied about is this:
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
********************
A person who is truly "born-again" after the fashion in which Jesus commanded will find a new principle within them. This is the work of the Holy Spirit to bring them spiritual understanding of the will and ways of the Lord. For the reborn the scriptures take on a whole different character, it is truly miraculous. The Bible, which before was a dead book, begin to speak with the very voice of God to the believer. This is summed up by the blind man in John who proclaimed,
"one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see."
Now is this new principle an infallible guide to the life in Christ and the scripture? Absolutely not. Sin and ignorace interfere. Paul himself confesses,
"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."
********************
And that highlights the role of the community. If you are out on your own on an interpretation in the midst of a Spirit-filled community of believers then you are more than likely out of God's will. If you are on your own on an interpretation in the midst of an apostate church you might just be a prophet.
It is a mistaken idea that Protestants hate ignore tradition. We honor tradition in the forms of the confessions, council pronouncements and the writings of the fathers, but we do not accept tradition as being "apostolic" or something that has authority equal to that of the scriptures. We obviously do not believe they are infallible. We do not allow to anyone the right to formulate new doctrine or to make decisions contrary to scripture. The history of the church at large shows all to clearly that leaders and councils make can make serious mistakes. Therefore, their decisions must be based on Scripture.
This coupled with Jesus attitude towards the Talmud makes us unable to accept the superiority of sacred tradition over the scripture and deny sacred tradition's claim to infallibility.
We don't need the New Testament then! Back when Paul was writing, "sciptures" meant the Septuagint.
Is what Paul said true or false?
"Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." - Jesus in Matt. 5
Have you stopped beating your wife?
"Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." - Jesus in Matt. 5
There is nothing in the verses you have provided to support the claim of "Bible only" or "the Bible is sufficient." If you really do believe that only the Bible should be used and that it is sufficient, then fine. However, you will find no foundation for asserting these things from any of the scripture contained in the Bible as we have it today.
The very fact that Paul wrote letters to various bodies of believers in order to regulate the Church of that time should speak volumes to you about the need for God to continually regulate the Church through his anointed representatives. If the scripture of Paul's time was sufficient, why don't you just go and rip all the epistles of Paul from your Bible?
None of the translations of 2 Timothy 3:16 that I am aware of uses the word "sufficient." The word in most English translations is "profitable" or "useful" or "beneficial." Strong's entry for the corresponding word reads "helpful or serviceable, that is, advantageous: - profit (-able)."
And yet, for some reason which is beyond me, you keep reading "sufficient" in your Bible. Why is that I wonder?
There is no need to rush to such unfounded conclusions that simply aren't there if you truly treasure the Bible.
Merely for you to ask if I think Paul is lying is thoroughly insulting, and I think it is dishonest of you to ask that question of me. Obviously, I do not believe any scripture to be lying. Nonetheless, your interpretation is bogus. You are trying to interpret Paul as implying, "The scriptures alone were sufficient to bring Timothy to salvation. Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice. Scripture is infallible, sufficient, and clear in all it's major doctrines," or words to that effect.
I point out that if what Paul said proves what you claim, then you have proven too much. You have proven that the Septuagint alone is sufficient, because the Septuagint was the scriptures back when Paul wrote.
He who proves too much proves nothing at all.
We do not allow to anyone the right to formulate new doctrine or to make decisions contrary to scripture.
Hah! You Protestants have been doing that all along, as when you changed your doctrines to endorse contraception.
Now I return to question I asked you back in Post #81:
"The subject of this thread is, 'The Bible Alone is Not Enough,' and you were disputing that thesis, were you not? Well then, if the Bible alone really were enough, you wouldn't know which books belong in it and which don't, now would you? The Bible doesn't tell you, does it?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.