Posted on 03/15/2004 6:40:12 PM PST by narses
The "Bible Alone" is Not Enough
Answers to 25 Questions on the History of New Testament which completely refute the Protestants' "Bible Only" Theory.
ONE
Did Our Lord write any part of the New Testament or command His Apostles to do so? Our Lord Himself never wrote a line, nor is there any record that He ordered His Apostles to write; He did command them to teach and to preach. Also He to whom all power was given in Heaven and on earth (Matthew 28-18) promised to give them the Holy Ghost (John 14-26) and to be with them Himself till the end of the world. (Matthew 28-20).
Comment: If reading the Bible were a necessary means of salvation, Our Lord would have made that statement and also provided the necessary means for His followers.
TWO
How many of the Apostles or others actually wrote what is now in the New Testament? A few of the Apostles wrote part of Our Lords teachings, as they themselves expressly stated; i.e., Peter, Paul, James, John, Jude, Matthew, also Saints Mark and Luke. None of the others wrote anything, so far as is recorded.
Comment: If the Bible privately interpreted was to be a Divine rule of Faith, the Apostles would have been derelict in their duty when instead, some of them adopted preaching only.
Was it a teaching or a Bible-reading Church that Christ founded?
The Protestant Bible expressly states that Christ founded a teaching Church, which existed before any of the New Testament books were written.
Romans 10-17: So then faith cometh by Hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Matthew 28-19: Go ye therefore and Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Mark 16-20: And they went forth, and Preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following.
Mark 16-15: And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and Preach the gospel to every creature.
Comment: Thus falls the entire basis of the 'Bible-only theory.
FOUR
Was there any drastic difference between what Our Lord commanded the Apostles to teach and what the New Testament contains? Our Lord commanded His Apostles to teach all things whatsoever He had commanded; (Matthew 28-20); His Church must necessarily teach everything; (John 14-26); however, the Protestant Bible itself teaches that the Bible does not contain all of Our Lords doctrines:
John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book.
John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
Comment: How would it have been possible for second century Christians to practice Our Lords religion, if private interpretation of an unavailable and only partial account of Christs teaching were indispensable?
Does the New Testament expressly refer to Christs "unwritten word"? The New Testament itself teaches that it does not contain all that Our Lord did or, consequently, all that He taught.
John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book.
John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
Comment: Since the Bible is incomplete, it needs something else to supplement it; i.e., the spoken or historically recorded word which we call Tradition.
SIX
What became of the unwritten truths which Our Lord and the Apostles taught? The Church had carefully conserved this 'word of mouth teaching by historical records called Tradition. Even the Protestant Bible teaches that many Christian truths were to be handed down by word of mouth.
2 Thessalonians 2-14: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Timothy 2-2: And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
Comment: Hence not only Scripture but other sources of information must be consulted to get the whole of Christs teaching. Religions founded on 'the Bible only are therefore necessarily incomplete.
Between what years were the first and last books of the New Testament written? The first book, Saint Matthews Gospel, was not written until about ten years after Our Lords Ascension. Saint Johns fourth gospel and Apocalypse or Book of Revelations were not written until about 100 A.D.
Comment: Imagine how the present-day privately interpreted 'Bible-only theory would have appeared at a time when the books of the New Testament were not only unavailable, but most of them had not yet been written.
When was the New Testament placed under one cover? In 397 A.D. by the Council of Carthage, from which it follows that non- Catholics have derived their New Testament from the Catholic Church; no other source was available.
Comment: Up to 397 A.D., some of the Christians had access to part of the New Testament; into this situation, how would the 'Bible-only privately interpreted theory have fitted?
NINE
Why so much delay in compiling the New Testament? Prior to 397 A.D., the various books of the New Testament were not under one cover, but were in the custody of different groups or congregations. The persecutions against the Church, which had gained new intensity, prevented these New Testament books from being properly authenticated and placed under one cover. However, this important work was begun after Constantine gave peace to Christianity in 313 A.D., allowing it to be practiced in the Roman Empire.
Comment: This again shows how utterly impossible was the 'Bible-only theory, at least up to 400 A.D.
TEN
What other problem confronted those who wished to determine the contents of the New Testament? Before the inspired books were recognized as such, many other books had been written and by many were thought to be inspired; hence the Catholic Church made a thorough examination of the whole question; biblical scholars spent years in the Holy Land studying languages of New Testament writings.
Comment: According to the present-day 'Bible-only theory, in the above circumstances, it would also have been necessary for early Christians to read all the doubtful books and, by interior illumination, judge which were and which were not divinely inspired.
ELEVEN
Who finally did decide which books were inspired and therefore belonged to the New Testament? Shortly before 400 A.D. a General Council of the Catholic Church, using the infallible authority which Christ had given to His own Divine institution, finally decided which books really belonged to the New Testament and which did not.
Either the Church at this General Council was infallible, or it was not.
If the Church was infallible then, why is it not infallible now? If the Church was not infallible then, in that case the New Testament is not worth the paper it is written on, because internal evidences of authenticity and inspiration are inconclusive and because the work of this Council cannot now be rechecked; this is obvious from reply to next question.
Comment: In view of these historical facts, it is difficult to see how non-Catholics can deny that it was from the (Roman) Catholic Church that they received the New Testament.
TWELVE
Why is it impossible for modern non-Catholics to check over the work done by the Church previous to 400 A.D.? The original writings were on frail material called papyrus, which had but temporary enduring qualities. While the books judged to be inspired by the Catholic Church were carefully copied by her monks, those rejected at that time were allowed to disintegrate, for lack of further interest in them.
Comment: What then is left for non-Catholics, except to trust the Catholic Church to have acted under divine inspiration; if at that time, why not now?
THIRTEEN
Would the theory of private interpretation of the New Testament have been possible for the year 400 A.D.? No, because, as already stated, no New Testament as such was in existence.
Comment: If our non-Catholic brethren today had no Bibles, how could they even imagine following the 'Bible-only privately interpreted theory but before 400 A.D., New Testaments were altogether unavailable.
FOURTEEN
Would the private interpretation theory have been possible between 400 A.D., and 1440 A.D., when printing was invented? No, the cost of individual Bibles written by hand was prohibitive; moreover, due to the scarcity of books, and other reasons, the ability to read was limited to a small minority. The Church used art, drama and other means to convey Biblical messages.
Comment: To have proposed the 'Bible-only theory during the above period would obviously have been impracticable and irrational.
FIFTEEN
Who copied and conserved the Bible during the interval between 400 A.D. and 1440 A.D.? The Catholic monks; in many cases these monks spent their entire lives to give the world personally-penned copies of the Scriptures, before printing was invented.
Comment: In spite of this, the Catholic Church is accused of having tried to destroy the Bible; had she desired to do this, she had 1500 years within which to do so.
SIXTEEN
Who gave the Reformers the authority to change over from the one Faith, one Fold and one Shepherd program, to that of the 'Bible-only Theory? Saint Paul seems to answer the above when he said: 'But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Galatians 1-8 (Protestant version).
Comment: If in 300 years, one-third of Christianity was split into at least 300 sects, how many sects would three-thirds of Christianity have produced in 1900 years? (Answer is 5700.)
SEVENTEEN
Since Luther, what consequences have followed from the use of the 'Bible-only theory and its personal interpretation? Just what Saint Paul foretold when he said: 'For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. 2 Timothy 4-3 (Protestant edition). According to the World Almanac for 1953 there are in the United States 20 different organizations of Methodists, 22 kinds of Baptists, 10 branches of Presbyterians, 13 organizations of Mennonites, 18 of Lutherans and hundreds of other denominations.
Comment: The 'Bible-only theory may indeed cater to the self-exaltation of the individual, but it certainly does not conduce to the acquisition of Divine truth.
EIGHTEEN
In Christs system, what important part has the Bible? The Bible is one precious source of religious truth; other sources are historical records (Tradition) and the abiding presence of the Holy Ghost.
Comment: Elimination of any one of the three elements in the equation of Christs true Church would be fatal to its claims to be such.
NINETEEN
Now that the New Testament is complete and available, what insolvable problem remains? The impossibility of the Bible to explain itself and the consequent multiplicity of errors which individuals make by their theory of private interpretation. Hence it is indisputable that the Bible must have an authorized interpreter.
2 Peter 1-20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2 Peter 3-16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Acts 8-30: And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Isaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31. And he said, How can I, except some men should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
Comment: Only by going on the supposition that falsehood is as acceptable to God as is truth, can the 'Bible-only theory be defended.
TWENTY
Who is the official expounder of the Scriptures? The Holy Ghost, acting through and within the Church which Christ founded nineteen centuries ago; the Bible teaches through whom in the Church come the official interpretations of Gods law and Gods word.
Luke 10-16: He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that despiseth you despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me.
Matthew 16-18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Malachias 2-7: For the priests lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.
Comment: Formerly, at least, it was commonly held that when individuals read their Bibles carefully and prayerfully, the Holy Ghost would guide each individual to a knowledge of the truth. This is much more than the Catholic Church claims for even the Pope himself. Only after extended consultation and study, with much fervent prayer, does he rarely and solemnly make such a decision.
TWENTY-ONE
What are the effects of the Catholic use of the Bible? Regardless of what persons may think about the Catholic Church, they must admit that her system gets results in the way of unity of rule and unity of Faith; otherwise stated, one Faith, one Fold and one Shepherd.
Comment: If many millions of non-Catholics in all nations, by reading their Bible carefully and prayerfully, had exactly the same faith, reached the same conclusions, then this theory might deserve the serious consideration of intelligent, well-disposed persons -- but not otherwise.
TWENTY-TWO
Why are there so many non-Catholic Churches? Because there is so much different interpretation of the Bible; there is so much different interpretation of the Bible because there is so much wrong interpretation; there is so much wrong interpretation because the system of interpreting is radically wrong; you cannot have one Fold and one Shepherd, one Faith and one Baptism, by allowing every man and every woman to distort and pervert the Scriptures to suit his or her own pet theories.
Comment: To say that Bible reading is an intensely Christian practice, is to enunciate a beautiful truth; to say that Bible reading is the sole source of religious Faith, is to make a sadly erroneous statement.
TWENTY-THREE
Without Divine aid, could the Catholic Church have maintained her one Faith, one Fold, and one Shepherd? Not any more than the non-Catholic sects have done; they are a proof of what happens when, without Divine aid, groups strive to do the humanly impossible.
Comment: Catholics love, venerate, use the bible; but they also know that the Bible alone is not Christs system but only a precious book, a means, an aid by which the Church carries on her mission to 'preach the Gospel to every living creature and to keep on preaching it 'to the end of time.
TWENTY-FOUR
Were there any printed Bibles before Luther? When printing was invented, about 1440, one of the first, if not the earliest printed book, was an edition of the Catholic Bible printed by Johann Gutenberg. It is reliably maintained that 626 editions of the Catholic Bible, or portions thereof, had come from the press through the agency of the Church, in countries where her influence prevailed, before Luthers German version appeared in 1534. Of these, many were in various European languages. Hence Luthers 'discovery of the supposedly unknown Bible at Erfurt in 1503 is one of those strange, wild calumnies with which anti-Catholic literature abounds.
Comment: Today parts of the Bible are read in the vernacular from every Catholic altar every Sunday. The Church grants a spiritual premium or indulgence to those who read the Bible; every Catholic family has, or is supposed to have, a Bible in the home. Millions of Catholic Bibles are sold annually.
TWENTY-FIVE
During the Middle Ages, did the Catholic Church manifest hostility to the Bible as her adversaries claim? Under stress of special circumstances, various regulations were made by the Church to protect the people from being spiritually poisoned by the corrupted and distorted translations of the Bible; hence opposition to the Waldensians, Albigensians, Wycliffe and Tyndale.
Comment: Individual churchmen may at times have gone too far in their zeal, not to belittle the Bible, but to protect it. There is no human agency in which authority is always exercised blamelessly.
Taken from The Catholic Religion Proved by the Protestant Bible
Reprinted from the Juluy 1995 edition of
Catholic Family News
MPO Box 743 * Niagara Falls, NY 14302
905-871-6292 * cfnjv@localnet.com
CFN is published once a month (12 times per year) • Subscription: $28.00 a year.
Request sample copy
Home • Audio Cassettes • CFN Index
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.