What an arrogant statement.
II Timothy 3:
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (KJV)
Yes, He did.
Christ did not say, "Sit down and write Bibles and scatter them over the earth, and let every man read his Bible and judge for himself."
II Timothy 2:
[15] Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (KJV)Acts 17:
[11] These [the Bereans] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (KJV)
Yes, He did.
Ever since the Sixteenth Century there have been springing up religion upon religion, and churches upon churches, all fighting and quarreling with one another.
I sure am glad that there is no fighting and quarreling going on within the Catholic church (SSPX, CMRI, Sedevacantists, modernists, etc.)
The Catholic religion had existed sixty-five years before the Bible was completed, before it was written.
There is no proof of this. There may have been a catholic faith, but not a Catholic faith at the time of the Apostles.
But how did they know what they had to do to save their souls?
Ephesians 4:
[11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
[12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (KJV)
There were the OT Scriptures and these different teaching gifts in the church at that time. The revelatory gifts, Prophecy, Knowledge, and Tongues, were given until the NT Scriptures were complete. (I Cor 13:8-10) God did not leave His saints without a Guide.
Was it from the Bible that they learned it? No, because the Bible was not written.
See above. The OT Scriptures were written by this time as well.
And would our Divine Saviour have left His Church for sixty-five years without a teacher, if the Bible is the teacher of man?
John 16:
[13] Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (KJV)
No one has ever said that Jesus left us without a teacher or that the Bible is our teacher. The Holy Ghost is our teacher and the Bible is His textbook.
Now, my dear friends, none of the Apostles ever read the Bible; not one of them except, perhaps, Saint John. For all of them had died martyrs for the Faith of Jesus Christ and never saw the cover of a Bible. Every one of them died martyrs and heroes for the Church of Jesus before the Bible was completed.
Why does this man continue to give the idea that the Bible is only the NT? The OT Scriptures were available.
In all that time the people did not know what constituted the Bible.
Didn’t they? Weren’t the Epistles in circulation? Weren’t the Gospels in circulation? The people knew, the council, or whatever he is referring to, merely ratified what the churches already knew.
And, therefore, they did not know what constituted the books of the Bible.
Yes, they did.
You would exclaim: "The Lord save us! And can we not go to Heaven without that book?" The answer would be: "No; you must have the Bible and read it."
This is just ridiculous. No one says that you can’t get to Heaven unless you own a Bible.
Yes, but are you sure you have a faithful translation?
Yes.
What a teacher, with thirty thousand errors!
You’d think with 30,000 errors, that this guy could have listed a few.
The Lord save us from such a teacher!
Halfway through this article I am saying the same thing.
You say the Bible is your guide, but you do not know if you have it.
Yes, I do.
"What did Washington do? He gave the people the Constitution and the Supreme Law, and appointed his Supreme Court and Supreme Judge of the Constitution. And these are to give the true explanation of the Constitution to all the American citizens - all without exception, from the President to the beggar."The Constitution means what it means. It doesn't mean what people say it means. When the framers wrote down the words of the Constitution, they did so with a particular meaning in mind. Those words have remained unchanged (legitimate constitutional amendments aside), therefore, the meaning has remained unchanged.
Benjamin Franklin once said, "It is every American's right, and obligation, to read and interpret the Constitution for himself." That should not be left up to corrupt government officials. Likewise, interpretation of Scripture should not be left up to the church. Were that the case, there would be no need for anyone to read the Bible - ever. What the church says, goes. So, if another Inquisition were to be held, no one could point to Scripture to say that it was wrong.
I find it interesting that when the Catholic Church defends the supremacy of church tradition, it does so without backing up its claim with Scripture. It points not to the Bible, but to church tradition as proof that church tradition is the way to go. Because of this, there is no solid standard by which anything can be measured. As church tradition changes, so do ideas of right and wrong.
Of course they could not have read the Bible as we have it today, But they did have access to old testament scripture. Plus, God used them to write the new testament. How could they read a book that was still in the process of being written?
I had always been told that the Bible was not one book. but a binding of several books/scriptures. the comment "...a good book..." seems to show the problem. The Bible is not just some sort of large Novel, but a binding of several books and scriptures, assembled for us to use to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Tim 2:15)"
Considering how apostate churches have become (not just the Catholic church, but many other denominations), I will stick to the Bible and a good Bible teaching church.