What is the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture?

gotquestions.org ^ | unknown | Got Questions Ministries

[ealgeone]

Question: "What is the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture? What does it mean that the Bible is sufficient?"

Answer: The doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture is a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. To say the Scriptures are sufficient means that the Bible is all we need to equip us for a life of faith and service. It provides a clear demonstration of God’s intention to restore the broken relationship between Himself and humanity through His Son, Jesus Christ, our Savior through the gift of faith. No other writings are necessary for this good news to be understood, nor are any other writings required to equip us for a life of faith.

[af_vet_1981]

I was posting the full range of the meaning of the word.

The Authorized Version does not agree with your translation. Do you mean Protestants and Fundamentalists have not had the correct translation of the holy scriptures for over four hundred years ?

[ealgeone]

“All Scripture...”

I see you still don’t know the difference between ALL and ONLY.

Until you can show that you can tell the difference between ALL and ONLY, all intelligent people will continue to laugh at you.

As 2 Tim defines only Scripture as what is good and profitable, etc, then it follows that only Scripture is good and profitable, etc.

[af_vet_1981]

Again proving the reason why context is so important in understanding the NT...especially John 6.

The context is clear. The Messiah commanded the Jews, including His Jewish disciples, to eat His body and drink His blood, and that unless one does this one has no life in him. Some of His disciples protested and left Him.

[af_vet_1981]

As 2 Tim defines only Scripture as what is good and profitable, etc, then it follows that only Scripture is good and profitable, etc.

No, there is something else; one could call it works or spiritual exercise.

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

...

For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

Romans, Catholic chapter twelve, Protestant verses one to two,

First Timothy, Catholic chapter four, Protestant verse 8,

as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[ealgeone]

Here's the elephant in the room which you can't get around. The new Christian communities in Corinth and Ephesus (and other places) were instructed and directed by Paul, the evangelist, not by a book. They received his letters as spiritual guidance from an elder, an authority figure, a real, live human being; the evangelist who had brought them the Gospel.

Some of these letters were more than just "guidance". They were well thought out theology that Paul was moved to write in particular Romans and Galatians.

This is the model which has come down through the centuries; bishops write letters of guidance to their flocks. The early Church flourished under the personal, spiritual guidance of the apostles and elders before any New Testament appeared. Your argument comes to dead end, right there, in the first century AD.

Was there oral instruction? Yes. No one denies that.

What we don't have though are what those lessons were.

We can speculate a lot about them, but we do have Paul's letters which give us a pretty good idea of how the Holy Spirit was guiding him.

We do know that Paul's letters were considered Scripture from an early point in the life of the church ~66 AD based on 2 Peter 3:15-16.

We know his letters were being circulated among the churches 1 Thes 5:27, Galatians 1:2, Colossians 4:16, the letter to the church in Rome.

In Galatians and Colossians he was clear these were to be read to the other churches.

We also know from history these letters were being circulated among the early churches.

We have John's Revelation to the seven churches in Asia.

Of all the myriad of writings from the first century and beyond, only 27 were deemed by the church to be Scripture.

When the RCC had the opportunity at Trent to expand the canon and include many of the writings from th ECFs they cling to they did not. That they didn't is telling.

The Roman Catholic notion of progressive revelation comes to an end right there in the 1st century.

[boatbums]

How brainwashed do you have to be to claim the Bible says something it clearly does not say? There is not one clear, comprehensive, unambiguous, direct, declarative statement in the entire Bible that teaches what you claim. You don't have to like it, but to claim otherwise is to take the name of the Lord in vain.

Talk about brainwashing! How can anyone imagine the Divinely inspired WRITTEN word of God - the writings that holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit - could ever be in any competition to whatever mere men think up??? I think you don't like it because you know it means your religion's extra-Biblical doctrines are NOT based upon the truth. Taking the Lord's name in vain also means you presume to put words in His mouth and claim Popes and bishops could possibly speak AS the Holy Spirit - in His place! Brainwashed AND arrogance.

[ealgeone]

The context is clear. The Messiah commanded the Jews, including His Jewish disciples, to eat His body and drink His blood, and that unless one does this one has no life in him. Some of His disciples protested and left Him.

Again proving why context is so important in understanding the NT. You don't even have the right reason why many of the disciples left Him.

60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?”

61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble?

62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

63“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

64“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.

65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

67So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?”

68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.

69“We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

John 6:60-69 NASB

[ealgeone]

Where did Paul go to learn the Faith after his conversion? The NT had not been written!

He went to the apostles, to be INSTRUCTED

You sure about that??

Do priests receive any training in the Bible at all?

13For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; 14and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.

15But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased

16to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles,

I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood,

17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.

18Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20(Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) 21Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24And they were glorifying God because of me. Galatians 1:13-24 NASB

[ealgeone]

The Authorized Version does not agree with your translation. Do you mean Protestants and Fundamentalists have not had the correct translation of the holy scriptures for over four hundred years ?

Don't know. I don't use the KJV. The Greek renders it once for all.

[Texas Songwriter]

Paul went to Egypt for 3 years. He confided not with the disciples but receive instruction from the Holy Spirit.

Gal. 1:6-8...I marvel the ye are so soon removed from him that called you unto the grace of Christ unto another gospel" Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven preach unto you another gospel let him be accursed. (That means I wish the last one of you go to hell)

[af_vet_1981]

About that context; the text says
1. many of His disciples murmured
2. Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples murmured
3. He said some of them did not believe.
4. Many of them went back (protested against His teaching when it was hard) and walked with Him no more.
5. How is that any different than now ?

[HarleyD]

So, it is your opinion that Catholics are not Christians, because they disagree with certain Protestant precepts.

It is a dogma of the Catholic Church that membership in the Catholic Church is necessary to be saved (# 157).

153. The Church founded by Christ is unique and one.
154. The Church founded by Christ is holy.
155. The Church founded by Christ is catholic.
156. The Church founded by Christ is apostolic.
157. Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation.
158. It is permissible and profitable to venerate the Saints in Heaven, and to invoke their intercession.

So, either Catholic supposedly infallible dogma is wrong or there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. Catholics (according to their dogma) do not believe Protestants are saved

One may argue about Protestant "theories" that are "wrong" but there are plenty of inconsistencies in Catholicism. Unless you believe Protestants are not saved?

[ealgeone]

About that context; the text says

many of His disciples murmured agree

Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples murmured agree

He said some of them did not believe. He said many did not believe.

Many of them went back (protested against His teaching when it was hard) and walked with Him no more.

Here is where you disagree with the texts illustrating why context is so important.

64“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” 66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

[af_vet_1981]

Don't know. I don't use the KJV.

There is that know again.

The Greek renders it once for all.

No; the Greek renders it ἅπαξ, which the KJV translated "once".

Speaking of the New Testament, if only the Greek is completely authoritative, and only if translated as any individual deems fit, then
1. one does not have the complete holy scriptures unless one has them in Greek
2. one does not completely understand the scriptures unless one understands them in Greek
3. those with the best command of Koine Greek are those most likely to understand the holy scriptures
4. Ipso facto, the Early Church Fathers who used Koine Greek were the most likely to understand the holy scriptures correctly.
5. Koine Greek continues to be used as the liturgical language of services in the Greek Orthodox Church.[8]

[ealgeone]

Catholics (according to their dogma) do not believe Protestants are saved

One of the many changing beliefs of a group that says they don't change.

[af_vet_1981]

He said some of them did not believe.

"Some" is not the Greek work for "many."

Perhaps you confused some who did not believe with many who murmured, protested, and withdrew.

He said many did not believe.

Here is where you disagree with the texts illustrating why context is so important.

64“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” 66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

[ealgeone]

No; the Greek renders it ἅπαξ, which the KJV translated "once".

Again with the KJV.

Speaking of the New Testament, if only the Greek is completely authoritative, and only if translated as any individual deems fit, then

one does not have the complete holy scriptures unless one has them in Greek

No one has said that. The Scriptures can be translated into any language and understood in those languages.

one does not completely understand the scriptures unless one understands them in Greek A solid working knowledge of the Greek helps bring the NT into a clearer focus along with a working knowledge of the early first century when the texts were written. We are illustrating that principle tonight.

those with the best command of Koine Greek are those most likely to understand the holy scriptures

in general yes along with a correct understanding of hermeneutics and exegesis.

Ipso facto, the Early Church Fathers who used Koine Greek were the most likely to understand the holy scriptures correctly.

Disagree. One can take any language and read into something that isn't there. Catholics do this with the wedding at Cana where they "see" people praying to Mary and concluding from that we are to go to Mary to get Jesus to do things for us. None of which is supported by the text. Because one speaks Greek doesn't preclude one from practicing eisegesis which is what we see in the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church. Not all ECFs used Kione Greek either.

[ealgeone]

I concur with the use of some in the Greek. In either case they didn’t believe.

[Iscool]

“Paul didn’t learn anything from any Church...”

This is what is so comical about Bible-bangers. They will toss out anything they find inconvenient.

At least you're honest in that respect...Catholics are not bible bangers, as we are commanded to be ...
Joh_5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
2Ti_2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Yep, you sure ain't no bible banger...

Where did Paul go to learn the Faith after his conversion? The NT had not been written!
He went to the apostles, to be INSTRUCTED.

You couldn't be more wrong...

2Co 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
2Co 12:3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
2Co 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

And here Paul alludes to the fact that he was the man he was referring to but would not say outright for fear people would look at him as someone special...

2Co 12:5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.
2Co 12:6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.
2Co 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

So the apostle Paul spends some time in Heaven...Learning from the lips of the risen Jesus Christ...

Where did Paul go to learn the Faith after his conversion? The NT had not been written!
He went to the apostles, to be INSTRUCTED.

You couldn't be more wrong...

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus

Paul then spent 3 years wandering the deserts of Arabia WITH Jesus Christ learning how to operate the church...Paul alone was given the task of taking the gospel to the Gentile nations AND writing the inspired Epistles that would explain the plan of salvation to the Gentiles and govern the Gentile church(es)...

Act 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

All of the apostles including Peter and Jewish disciples learned from Paul how they were to conduct themselves in the Gentile church...

If you had searched and studied (and believed) the scriptures you would know that...

And BTW, the bible doesn't end in the book of Acts...The end of Acts is where the Gentile, Christian church starts...

[Iscool]

“All Scripture...”
I see you still don’t know the difference between ALL and ONLY.
Until you can show that you can tell the difference between ALL and ONLY, all intelligent people will continue to laugh at you.

Don't break your arm pattin' yourself on the back just yet...

Perhaps you'd like to show us some other literature outside of the scriptures that was inspired by God...