Skip to comments.Radio Replies First Volume - "Bible Only" a false principle
Posted on 07/16/2009 12:27:42 AM PDT by GonzoII
Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
Not exactly. It does not mean what is claimed. Sola Scripture just means the Bible is the authoritative source for the Word of God. Not that there aren't others, but other sources must line up with the Bible to be accepted. Bible only is a misnomer.
You don’t know anyone who heard Paul teach. They are long dead.
However, God would not fail to include all his necessary teaching in the Bible, or as you say, “It is impossible for Christ to have failed to keep all his truth available to the world.”
For me, the “Church” is merely the body of believers and all believers are “saints” by definition.
Honestly, your inflammatory language is kind of tiresome and unnecessary. I don't put myself in a box defined by any man-made doctrine. I seek the Kingdom of God, not blindly accept a doctrine whether it be Baptist, Pentecostal, or Catholic. Denominations tend to put works and obedience over the Grace of God.
Very well. I don't argue over words. Indeed there are other inspired and authoritative sources of Christian doctrine.
Do you have objections to the article on substance, points 565-581?
The Holy Spirit is not a “repository” of God. The HS is God. At least, we trinitarians believe that. I’m assuming you are a trinitarian.
God, however, has seen fit to speak through His servants, the prophets, and the NT contains instances of prophets still being prompted to deliver specific messages to God’s people, none of which rises to the level of Holy Scripture.
Just off the top of my head, I would take issue with #’s 567, 569, and 571. I have heartburn with some of the other bold print statements, and some of the regular print explanations.
I do not consider that list to be a clear representation of historic Christianity or of the ideas of the medieval reformers.
OK, and what is wrong with these replies?
Are you referring to the numbers I listed?
Yes, Scripture has authority, in the sense that where there is disagreement between Scripture and a claimed "statement of God," Scripture is taken as correct.
But it is not a complete repository of all that God has said and done (cf. John 21:25).
I doubt that any reformer ever thought the above. In fact, they considered humans to be fallen creatures and in need of serious help.
Again, it ignores the reformers understanding of fallen humanity, and simply doesn't sound like how they would word such a comment.
To repeat, this simply doesn't sound like the reformers, who were all considerably educated men. All of them would affirm the biblical principle of study. These few I've pulled out are indicative of heartburn I have with a lot on the above list. I consider them caricatures (at very best) of what I believe.
I don’t think I intend anything other than the standard definition of the word: a place where something is stored.
But what is being stored, and how are we to regard it? Do you claim that the Bible is both a complete and solely authoritative record of God's word? Solely authoritative but not complete? Complete (to a point) but not solely authoritative?
It seems nitpicky, but in many respects those (and other) views of "repository" are characteristic of the various players in the many religious controversies we see around us.
Out of all of human history, and some history of the heavenlies, and out of all the words and deeds prompted or committed by God, the Bible contains those God considered necessary.
It does not surprise me that God’s Word is handled in a variety of ways by a variety of individuals. Hasn’t it been that way ever since Eden?
“Honestly, your inflammatory language is kind of tiresome and unnecessary.”
What I wrote is not inflammatory except to those who want to keep their man-made fantasies alive. I also said NOTHING that was unnecessary. If you belong to a sect and are attacking both common sense and the Church thereby, it should be noted and said.
“I don’t put myself in a box defined by any man-made doctrine.”
Sure you do. Do you believe in sola scriptura or sola fide? Both date back to the 16th century. Both are man-made. Period.
“I seek the Kingdom of God, not blindly accept a doctrine whether it be Baptist, Pentecostal, or Catholic.”
I don’t BLINDLY accept anything either. What I do is simple: I humbly accept the fact that Christ is King and His Church teaches by His authority. By the way, Baptists date back to only 1600. Pentecostals? Less than 150 years old. Catholic Church? About A.D. 33.
“Denominations tend to put works and obedience over the Grace of God.”
I’ve never been in a denomination. My Church, which is THE Church puts nothing over the grace of God.
As the CCC says in #2000-2002:
Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.
2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, “since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:”50
[quote from St. Augustine] Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.51
2002 God’s free initiative demands man’s free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy. The promises of “eternal life” respond, beyond all hope, to this desire:
[quote from St. Augustine] If at the end of your very good works . . ., you rested on the seventh day, it was to foretell by the voice of your book that at the end of our works, which are indeed “very good” since you have given them to us, we shall also rest in you on the sabbath of eternal life.52
And again ... that doesn't really answer the question of what you mean by that.
It's fine to say "necessary," but the term "Bible ONLY" would tend to imply not just "necessary," but also sufficient.
A "necessary and sufficient" viewpoint says that the only place to find God's word is in the Bible ... and thus the Holy Spirit loses importance. That's what the article is talking about and rejecting.
"Necessary" says that you cannot dispense with the Bible as a source of God's word; but it means that we cannot take the Bible as the sole source: we must look to other sources as well. This view is in accord with St. John's description of the Holy Spirit: will teach you all things and(D) bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you (John 14:26). One implication of this view may be that God may speak "new words" to us that may be also accepted as authoritative. But because the Bible is "necessary," the new words cannot contradict what's already in the Bible. Note that Scripture appears not to place any particular end date on the work of the Holy Spirit, however -- a view which could suggest that it's still possible to add a book to the Canon of Scripture.
"Sufficient" says that we can find God's word in the Bible and trust it, but that it's not the only place we can find a trustworthy exposition of God's word. One might suggest that St. Paul was saying something like this in Romans 1:20, his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made....
Again, you can see each of these at work in the various religious controversies.
It's probably not right to break it out so cleanly into these three categories; I can find something good in each of them, though I suppose I tend more to the "necessary" one more than the others. I'm curious which of them you would see yourself fitting into.
However, it wasn't YOUR Church that Jesus established...It's a pity your religion gets it's hooks into so many before before they've had a chance to get their hooks into the scripture...
But then I assume they aren't looking for Jesus anyway...They are looking for a religion...
Any Church which claims to hve been built upon the Bible must naturally have been established by men and not Christ
Now that's a crazy statement...
Jesus revealed to Paul how He wanted His church set up...Paul set about to put these instructions on paper and made sure they were read in the churches...And those instructions are ONLY in the scriptures...
Sure it is...It's just as biblical as the Trinity...
But you guys still can't find the Trinity in the scriptures so not finding 'scripture only' apparently would be just as impossible for you guys...
But it doesn't contain any non-believers...You got the wrong Church...
Unless you can guarantee that Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are in fact Christian believers, you got the wrong church...
There are absolutely NO unbelievers in the church of Jesus Christ...
Jesus did not establish a church to bring people to Him...The people that turned to Him ARE the church...
You got the wrong church...
By the terms of the false tradition of men known as sola Scriptura, both sola Scriptura and the Trinity must be rejected.
Not his Church, but certainly His Church. Christ established the Catholic Church. It is neither mine nor yours nor vlad's.
It is Christ's.
“However, it wasn’t YOUR Church that Jesus established...”
Yes, actually it was.
“It’s a pity your religion gets it’s hooks into so many before before they’ve had a chance to get their hooks into the scripture...”
Uh, that doesn’t even make sense as a sentence. When you can form a coherent sentence let me know.
“But then I assume they aren’t looking for Jesus anyway...They are looking for a religion...”
We have a religion - Christianity - and it’s from Jesus.
“Now that’s a crazy statement...”
No, it’s perfectly rational. Again, which came first? If the Church came before the New Testament - and it did - then we know the Church is not based on the New Testament. The New Testament is based on the Church’s teachings as handed down from Christ to the Apostles.
“Jesus revealed to Paul how He wanted His church set up...Paul set about to put these instructions on paper and made sure they were read in the churches...And those instructions are ONLY in the scriptures...”
And the Church already existed BEFORE Paul. All Paul did was hand down in writing and orally what was already known and taught.
“But it doesn’t contain any non-believers...You got the wrong Church...”
No, I have the right one.
“Unless you can guarantee that Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are in fact Christian believers, you got the wrong church...”
No. There have always been sinners. Any group which claims not to have sinners is not the Church.
“There are absolutely NO unbelievers in the church of Jesus Christ...”
There have always been sinners and always will be. There were always some who lost faith in Christ as well. Judas was still an apostle even though he planned to betray Christ. Simon Magus was still a baptized Christian at one poit even though he clearly fell and left the Church.
“Jesus did not establish a church to bring people to Him...”
Yes, actually He did. Hence, the Great Commission. That’s why He said “Go” to the Apostles rather than, “They’ll come to you.”
“he people that turned to Him ARE the church...”
The Church told them about Jesus FIRST.
“You got the wrong church...”
Nope. You have the wrong idea and clearly don’t know the Biblical record of the Church.
Matthew ch11 25Then Jesus prayed this prayer: O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding the truth from those who think themselves so wise and clever, and for revealing it to the childlike. 26Yes, Father, it pleased you to do it this way! 27My Father has given me authority over everything. No one really knows the Son except the Father, and no one really knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
Which is what Christ meant here.
Matthew ch 16 15Then he asked them, Who do you say I am? 16Simon Peter answered, You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God. 17Jesus replied, You are blessed, Simon son of John,£ because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being. 18Now I say to you that you are Peter,£ and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell£ will not conquer it. 19And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you lock on earth will be locked in heaven, and whatever you open on earth will be opened in heaven. 20Then he sternly warned them not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.
Christ reveals Himself to us when He calls us. This is the very foundation Christ built the church upon. Man ran churches as well as it's leaders can be led astray and lead many astray as well with them. We are to compare their teachings to what GOD's Word says and not what they say we must do or believe. But the Holy Spirit can not be led astray. So which will I trust for truth and wisdom to understand GOD's Word when reading The Bible? The very one Christ said He would send to us for that very purpose. That is why hell will not conquer it.
“Necessary”, by definition, incorporates “sufficient.”
So far as cessationism is concerned, I am not one. I do believe in the continuing work of the Holy Spirit, but I do not believe in an extension of the scriptures, since the central point of history was the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, and the witnesses of His ministry attained their place within NT scripture by virtue of their having been a witness, or an amanuensis of a witness, of the resurrection.
Therefore, as you say, no utterance truly from the Holy Spirit will contradict the already given revelation of God as found in the scripture.
Nope. As an example, let's take your car.
An engine is necessary for your car to work as a car, but it is not sufficient -- you also need gas, tires, and so on.
In the case of Scripture, I agree with you that it's "necessary". Even according to Scripture, however, it is not sufficient.
Nope. Necessary in terms of the car would include all that was required to make it go. That would be parts, accessories, fuel, etc. that are “necessary.”
Had an older gentleman in one of the churches early in my ministry who would always include in his prayers a line about God granting us what we need, but not necessarily what we wanted.
He realized that what we “needed” would get us there. He also recognized that some of the perks were nice, but they weren’t needed.
You--- There have always been sinners and always will be. There were always some who lost faith in Christ as well. Judas was still an apostle even though he planned to betray Christ. Simon Magus was still a baptized Christian at one poit even though he clearly fell and left the Church.
Sorry...I didn't say sinners...I said unbelievers...Just because someone got wet doesn't mean he/she believes in anything...And just because someone is born into a religion and attends the services doesn't mean he/she believes in Jesus...
It would be impossible for an unbeliever to be a member of the Body of Jesus Christ...Therefore, it's impossible that your religion is the One True Church...
Me--- Jesus did not establish a church to bring people to Him...
You--- Yes, actually He did. Hence, the Great Commission. Thats why He said Go to the Apostles rather than, Theyll come to you.
Again, you're wrong...Jesus sent the disciples into the world to preach the Good News of the Gospel...The Good News of the Gospel is not to join the church but to believe on Jesus Christ...
Jesus never said, 'Join the church'...Jesus said that people that believed on Him were added to the church...NOT the other way around...
Me--- The people that turned to Him ARE the church...
You---The Church told them about Jesus FIRST.
So what's that prove??? Nothing...Lots of people talk about Jesus who have not been indwelt with the Holy Spirit and are NOT in Christ...Being religious does not equal being in the Body of Christ...
You guys have said yourselves that when a nonbeliever or someone unworthily dissolves the little cracker in his/her mouth, that the operation, whatever it may be, 'doesn't take'...Even if the person has been baptized...
That right there is an admission that yours could not be the One True Church because you allow non believers into the membership of your church...There can be NO unbelievers in the 'church'...Impossible...
Because God can only do what YOU--Iscool--can understand?
I see vicious Klan-worthy anti-Catholic hatred is alive and well.
Just as the ‘church’ is the body of believers in Christ, so is the concept that the Holy Spirit only indwells a true believer. God knows the heart and only He can see if faith is genuine.
Church membership (meaning a particular religion) profits no one. We are assured of our place in heaven when we die because the Holy Spirit was given to us as a down-payment. We are “sealed” with the Holy Spirit and, as such, can never be lost again. Jesus said he would lose nothing and no one can pluck us out of our Father's hand.
Amazing to see the adjective “excellent” ascribed to post 81 (a poisonous and tarry ball of anti-Catholic hatred).
But your claim is informative on at least one level.
Can you point to a Scripture passage that says "catholic"? My understanding is that the Christian church in Rome didn't get designated as "the only true church" until centuries after the resurrection and only then by the council themselves.
In one way it is. It tells us clearly that Christ established a definite Church which He commissioned to teach all nations.
There is only one reason for a post like this. This post is a shove it up your nose insult to your fellow Christians who are not Catholic. It’s purpose is to stir up antagonism and conflict.
I have tremendous respect for my Catholic friends and neighbors. We have enough in the way of common enemies that we should be united in our common faith in Christ’s salvation. We should not be looking for ways to drive wedges between us.
You---Uh, that doesnt even make sense as a sentence. When you can form a coherent sentence let me know.
Makes sense to me...What, you couldn't figure out that I left out 'people'??? So many 'people'???
What happened to that God inspired logic and common sense you guys are always bragging about???And the Church already existed BEFORE Paul.
Not as we know it...The Gospel of Grace was revealed thru Paul by Jesus Christ...The adoption of of Gentiles into this church to make the Jews jealous was revealed thru Paul by Jesus Christ...
All Paul did was hand down in writing and orally what was already known and taught
That's what your religion teaches you??? So you are saying the Lord didn't reveal anything 'new' to the Apostle Paul...How ridiculous...
What ever would there be need of a 'new' Apostle??? Matthew, Mark, Luke or John could have written all those epistles of Paul then...Why did God waste His time with a new Apostle AFTER He was Crucified???
The teaching of your religion is very much in opposition of what the scriptures teach...I would encourage any and every Lurker to pick up a Bible to read and prayerfully ask Jesus to help you open your understanding before you consider joining a Catholic church...
Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Can you point to a Scripture passage that says "trinity?"
So the body of Christ that you belong to has unbelievers in it, eh Petronski???
The body of Christ that I am a member of has NO unbelievers in it...That’s where our conflict lies...We are members of different Bodies...
Just like you guys claim you worship the same God the muzlims do...And your religion’s claim that your church has more in common with Izlam that it does with Protestantism...
I nor the body of Christ that I belong to do not worship the same God as the muzlims...And we have NOTHING in common with the muzlim religion...
There ya go...
I can definitely show you many verses that refer to the concept of the trinity. If you mean ‘catholic’ as in a universal church of believers, we have no disagreement, but that's not what you mean, is it?
Doesn't even hold a candle to the attacks by Catholics of Protestants on this thread.
“No, my argument is irrefutable. The Church came before the NT. Period. Irrefutable. Any sect today - like yours - that claims to be Bible based is really just a johnny-come-lately man-made sect based on the opinions of men.”
Tell me, what is Scripture? Is it not the teachings of the prophets, apsotles and the Lord Himself? Yes, it most certainly is. The Lord and the Apostles established the Church, which is His Body, to carry out His teachings. Thus the teachings came first.
When Protestants and Evangelicals insist on a Bible based Church, they are insisting on a Church that is rooted in the teachings of the prophets, apostles and the Lord Himself. Catholics insist on the same thing. So when a Protestant asks “Where’s that in the Bible?”, he is asking “When did Jesus teach that? What Apostle taught that? What prophet said that?”
It really is very simple. Unfortunately those among us who insist on dogmas that are not found in the teachings of any prophet, apsotle or the Lord Himself (some of the excess of Mariology and eschatology) try to downplay the importance of thos teachings.
The shoe fits. Wear it with pride.
Fuel is obviously necessary for your car to run. It is just as obviously not, in itself, sufficient for your car to run.
When we talk about knowing the word of God, is the Bible both necessary and sufficient as a means of knowing God's word? Or, as the authors of this article might ask, can we take Scripture as our only guide to God's word?
Again, even Scripture (e.g., John 5:39-40) says that the Bible is not "sufficient" in the technical sense of the word -- why would God bother sending a Holy Spirit if it were? The Bible is, however, clearly necessary.
The authors are correct in saying, "He who believes in Scripture as his only guide ends by believing in his own mistaken interpretations of the Bible, and that means that he ends by believing in himself."
Had an older gentleman in one of the churches early in my ministry who would always include in his prayers a line about God granting us what we need, but not necessarily what we wanted.
One of my favorite prayers is that of St. Chrysostom, which says in part, "Fulfill now, O Lord, our desires and petitions as may be best for us; granting us in this world knowledge of your truth, and in the age to come life everlasting."
It is Christ's. ****
Now wait a minute. It depends on which side of the fence you are looking from.
About 35 years ago I read an interesting newspaper interview with a Greek Orthodox priest.
He said that Christian Church was one organization in agreement until about 1000 years ago the Catholics broke away from the TRUE CHURCH! His words, not mine!
That would make the Catholics the first Protestants!
And I remember a thread on FR many years ago about how Martin Luther tried to establish contact with the Patriarch of Constantinople after his break from Rome.
Now there are hundreds of BIG WALLS separating Christians, all screaming WE ARE THE TRUE CHURCH THAT CHRIST ESTABLISHED! while others see only little fences and minor things separating us.
To all three: Fair enough. In fact, I have often been astonished by how convoluted and filtered through complex rules of hermeneutics the Protestant reading of the Bible is.
The rhetoric of Bible perspicuity still makes rounds in some circles though, does it not? At least historically that was a major part of Luther's theological revolution.
We view “necessary” differently because you are seeing an object and I am seeing an objective.
I see transportation being the purpose of the car, so gas in the car is part of what’s necessary. So are wheels, battery, etc.
I see salvation to the glory of God being the purpose of the Bible (these are written so you may have life), so when I say it contains all that’s necessary, then I mean that in terms of salvation. It doesn’t give me step-by-step instructions on how to conduct a church homecoming program. That, however, is not necessary for salvation.
And, the reason it must be the bible is because the bible ONLY has the word of God.