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.

[boatbums]

It’s obvious that some RCs NEED threads that are open so that they can vent their anger and frustration at the non-RC Christians here who DARE dispute their sacred dogmas. They expose that animosity by the personal words they use and the insults they lob. Count it all joy.

Imagine that! Asserting the sufficiency of God’s holy word! One shudders at the very thought! I remember Jesus had some pretty un-nice things to say to the Jewish religious leaders who held their traditions over Scripture thereby making the commandments of God of none effect. He also said heaven and earth would pass away but the word of God would never pass away.

[Elsie]

Well; the "THIS" is a chunk of lamb meat.

Something the Jews had eaten ANNUALLY at Passover; as a rememberance of GOD's saving them.

Remember John saying something like...

"BEHOLD! The Lamb of GOD..."

[ealgeone]

Simple yes or no....do you accept the Greek Orthodox position on the pope?

[Elsie]

I notice it is not there in Jude for the Authorized Version

Jude      Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

¹ Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James: to them that are beloved in God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called.

² Mercy unto you, and peace, and charity be fulfilled.

³ Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.

 

 

KJV

³ Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

 

 

I'm just SURE there is a MAJOR theological difference here; but it manages to escape me at this time.

[Elsie]

All Catholics are SECRETLY taught to worship Mary, but, in an attempt to deceive Protestants, all Popes, councils, creeds, teaching documents, theologians, catechisms, and textbooks say the opposite.

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,  a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever ...

believes that the Roman Catholic Church is the ONE True church,

and...
believes the wine and wafer served up by the priest is TRULY Christ's real flesh and blood (and eats it),

and...
believes he MUST confess his sins to the Only person able to forgive his sins (the priest),

and...
believes Mary is in Heaven,

and...
believes Mary will get Jesus to do whatever SHE tells Him, 

and...
believes Mary is a NECESSARY part of salvation,
and...
believes Mary is everyone's mother,

and...
believes Mary has, at many times and various places, brought yet another  message from Heaven that evidently was forgotten to be included in the bible when Rome assembled it,
and...
believes Mary makes promises to her adorers and venerators and hyperdulia expressors that she will bestow upon them HER favors if they do HER will,

and...
believes many famous dead Catholics have similar powers that Rome has attributed to Mary,

and...

believes holy water will repel vampires,          (well; maybe not THIS one...)

 

... will not be put to shame.” (I Peter 2:4-6) -- as Rome teaches it.

 

 

 

[Elsie]

Did you bow your head when you typed this?

[Elsie]

Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation.

Yup; this is what the 'church' teaches all right!

---

"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."

--Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)

[Elsie]

Paul then spent 3 years wandering the deserts of Arabia WITH Jesus Christ learning how to operate the church...

He DID??

[af_vet_1981]

Simple yes or no....do you accept the Greek Orthodox position on the pope?

No, I do not subscribe to the Greek Orthodox position on the Pope.

Now we must discuss what it means to be a Catholic Church. As a Catholic website with many Orthodox and some Protestant staff, this is a question we intend to address accurately and charitably. The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Churches (including non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches) as Apostolic, "true particular Churches" with valid sacraments. This status as "true particular Church" is derived from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. Thus, while the Catholic Church believes that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, Orthodox sacraments are valid. The Catholic Church allows Orthodox Christians to commune in certain circumstances, and the late Pope John Paul II spoke of the Eastern Church as one of the two "lungs" of Christendom. The Orthodox tend to assert that they can say where the Church is, but not where it is not, and the Catholic position seems very similar. Thus both Catholic and Orthodox recognize that the borders of the Church are somewhat of a mystery, although both Catholics and Orthodox believe each is the true and visible Church. As a Catholic I affirm that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, but that this somehow includes the Orthodox in a very real way.

One may ask, where does the bishop of Rome, the Pope, fit into all of this? Catholics believe that the Pope (and his Roman See) is the successor of St. Peter, and thus possesses a spiritual and jurisdictional Primacy that no other bishop holds. Eastern Orthodox Churches (whom the Catholic Church recognizes as "Sister Churches," with qualifications) will perhaps grant a kind of "first among equals" primacy to the bishop of Rome, but not a jurisdictional, or really even a spiritual, primacy. The office of the papacy has been abused at times, as has the power of other bishops in other regions, which has led many to distrust the papacy. For example, Martin Luther and other Protestants strongly criticized the papacy. However, we mustn't judge an office by its worst examples. As a website working toward ecumenical relationships between East and West, perhaps we need to emphasize that the primacy of the bishop of Rome is ultimately a primacy of servanthood and humility. Pope John Paul II in 1995 called for Catholic theologians to examine the primacy of Rome in light of ecumenical relationships and servanthood (Ut Unum Sint 95). However, despite this noble call which unfortunately few have heeded, the Pope, the successor to Saint Peter, is the visible head of the Church, who when speaking on matters of faith and morals on behalf of the Church is infallible, and this presents a problem in light of East-West relations. However, as I have said, Catholics are willing to grant the Orthodox Churches the role of "Sister Churches" and are willing to commune Orthodox Christians. This shows that the Catholic Church recognizes that despite the unwillingness of many Eastern Churches to recognize the Primacy of Rome, they still possess qualities that make them part of the Church. Perhaps this, and the call to reflect on the papacy in light of an improved relationship with the East, are good starting points to future unity.

I interpret the question as evidence of default on the topic of the thread, the sufficiency of scripture, since the thread has now become about which catholic tradition is correct.

[Elsie]

No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.

Who needs proof?

That would require studying the relevant facts of the matter and ain't NOBODY got time for that!

If my church tells me it's true; then By GOD! it HAS to be true!!

--Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(Hail Mary!!!)

[ealgeone]

Nope. No default on the original point of the thread. You cited the Orthodox on this, and other threads, as having a better grasp of the Greek than anyone else suggesting that they are far more correct in their understanding of the issues.

As they differ with the RCC on the papacy I wanted to know if you agreed with them and their better grasp of the Greek.

To your credit you did answer the question. I commend you on your forthrightness.

However, you reject their position on the papacy thus negating your appeal to their expertise on the Greek.

[boatbums]

This is pretty good evidence that Catholic priests don’t study the Bible very much.

[ealgeone]

To be honest I’m not sure what they study.

[boatbums]

Again presumptions on your part addressed above. Further, you presume one cannot learn the nuances of a language and properly understand the language. I think you know that is a very weak argument on your part.

Actually, what I know is that the ECFs knew Koine Greek better than us.

And in what language, pray tell, did these ECFs WRITE their thoughts, teachings, etc.? We know English didn't exist back then.

[HarleyD]

I believe the scriptures, as handed down to us, to be the infallible and inerrant word of God good for teaching, reproof, correction, and for training in righteousness that we may be complete and capable for all good works. There are plenty of tools on the Internet these days to find out what precisely God wrote down for our instruction.

Now, do you believe the same?

[Elsie]

From your link:

Orthodox theologians hold that there is a marked difference in the teaching and understanding of the Trinitarian doctrine both East and West.

[Elsie]

The sinless life of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the honour due to her as Theotokos

You're in agreement in being wrong.

---

 

 

 

Luke 2:22-24

 

When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord  (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”),  and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”

 

Leviticus 12:7-8

 

Then he shall offer it before the LORD and make atonement for her, and she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, whether a male or a female.
'But if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.'"

 

 

 

 

Sinless Mary??

  Not according to Rome's Book;    1 John 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

 

That's the way it is WRITTEN.

 

THIS is the way it is TAUGHT:  1 John 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us; the only exception being Mary, Mother of GOD, of course.

 Rome has made IT's 'Mary' into a HYPOCRIT, by painting her as SINLESS, yet writing of her going into the temple to make a SIN offering.

[rwa265]

I notice you still won’t tell us what particular Protestant sect you adhere to.

---

I would cut ealgeone some slack on this question. I have friends and relatives who do not identify with a specific sect or denomination. They are members of unaffiliated churches that are outgrowths of the Restoration movement of the 1800’s. Their churches go by names such as Hope Christian Church or Springfield Church of Christ and each church is an independent congregation unto its own. There are also independent gospel hall assemblies. They fellowship with other assemblies throughout the world and have a common set of beliefs and practices, but they avoid the use of sectarian or denominational names. They call themselves Christians who gather together in the name of Jesus.

[Elsie]

Simple yes or no....do you accept the Greek Orthodox position on the pope?

Who cares?

Does he 'accept' ROME's authority about his OWN pope?

Is he a Francis DENIER?

[Elsie]

I interpret the question as evidence of default on the topic of the thread, the sufficiency of scripture, since the thread has now become about which catholic tradition is correct.

Yes.

You Catholics have done a Herculian job in wresting the tiller to steer the thread in that direction.

I; for one; am GLAD to help out showing where Rome's 'tradition' differs from the Book that Rome has assembled.