Posted on 05/27/2017 9:15:17 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at gotquestions.org ...
Except Scripture never says that. That is a man-made belief.
“But if I tarry long, that you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15
30Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:30-31 NASB
16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 NASB
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.
When discussing Scripture, Christians are referring to both Old and New Testaments. The apostle Paul declared that the holy Scriptures “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” (2 Timothy 3:15–17). If Scripture is “God-breathed,” then it is not man-breathed, and, although it was penned by men, those “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). No man-made writing is sufficient to equip us for every good work; only the Word of God can do that. Furthermore, if the Scriptures are sufficient to thoroughly equip us, then nothing more is needed.
Colossians 2 deals with the dangers a church faces when the sufficiency of Scripture is challenged and merged with non-biblical writings, full of ungodly theology and concepts. Paul warned the church at Colosse: “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ” (Colossians 2:8). Jude says it even more specifically when he writes, “Although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 1:3).
Notice the phrase “once and for all.” This makes it clear that no other writings, no matter how godly the pastor, theologian, or denominational church they may come from, are to be seen as equal to or completing the Word of God. The Bible is all that is necessary for the believer to understand the character of God, the nature of man, and the doctrines of sin, heaven, hell, and salvation through Jesus Christ. Paul’s words to the Galatians indicate the seriousness of delivering a message outside the Bible: “If we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (Galatians 1:8).
Perhaps the strongest verses on the issue of the sufficiency of the Bible come from the book of Psalms. In Psalm 19:7–14, David rejoices in God’s Word, declaring it to be perfect, trustworthy, right, radiant, enlightening, sure and altogether righteous.
The sufficiency of Scripture is under attack today, and, sadly, that attack comes far too often in our own churches. Management techniques, worldly methods of drawing crowds, entertainment, extra-biblical revelations, mysticism, and some forms of psychological counseling all declare that the Bible and its precepts are not adequate for the Christian life. But Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me” (John 10:27). His voice is all we need to hear and the Scriptures are His voice, completely and utterly sufficient.
No problem with posting the whole article...hence that’s why the link is provided.
So the Truth didn't exist until your 'Church' showed up to create it??? How ridiculous...Paul is teaching people how to act in the church...
WHO TAUGHT PAUL HOW TO ACT IN THE CHURCH BUT THE REAL PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH??? Your church??? Of course not...
Paul didn't learn anything from any Church...He learned it from the only pillar and ground of truth there is or ever was...
Paul condems your religion and its version of the pillar and foundation of the truth...
Gal 1:8 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.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
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.
Paul is teaching Christians how to act in the church from instructions given him by the pillar and ground of truth, God; as the scripture you posted clearly states...
The Protestant belief in the sufficiency of scripture is often put forward as the first of the Five Solas, "Sola Scriptura".
So, while not presented directly as such the article is in fact a thinly veiled critique of Catholic teaching on the subject. Here are some excerpts from the chatechism of the Catholic Church on the nature of scripture:
108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.
110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.
112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.
The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.
113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church")
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
So, as you can see, "opinions differ" among different Christian Churches on this matter.
I believe the author of the article is therefore incorrect when he opens his answer with this over-broad assertion: The doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture is a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. He is, in fact asserting that the Protestant view on the matter is "fundamental" to all Christians. This is incorrect.
No, he's correct when he refers to this as a tenant of the Christian faith. As noted earlier, the Bible itself teaches that Scripture is sufficient.
It's not a tenant of Roman Catholicism.
There is a difference.
If we allow "Tradition" to be equal to Scripture, then you have to allow the Mormon their Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price as equal to Scripture.
Christianity rejects these extraneous writings as they are 1) not Scripture, 2) contain contradictory teachings apart from Scripture.
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.
It's not a tenant of Roman Catholicism.
There is a difference
So, it is your opinion that Catholics are not Christians, because they disagree with certain Protestant precepts. That's always struck me as a ridiculous position, historically illiterate.
Following your logic: the first 1500 years of Christianity were in error. The saints and martyrs of the early Church, all of whom were Catholics, that is adhered to the rulings of the Bishops and the authority of the Bishop of Rome, were not Christians.
Whereas the great Martin Luther, and his followers, discovered actual Christianity, presumably beginning with his nailing of the 95 Theses and continuing on through the resulting Reformation (but not counting the Counter Reformation, for some reason).
And of course the Scripture which is "Sola" to Protestants was itself curated and assembled by the Catholic Church, with the formation of the Bible at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD.
Of course according to Protestant theory the non-Christian" Catholics got that wrong too, or so said Martin Luther who went about editing the Bible to remove the portions he didn't like. Here is Wikipedia's description of "Luther's Cannon"
Luther's canon is the biblical canon attributed to Martin Luther, which has influenced Protestants since the 16th-century Protestant Reformation. While the Lutheran Confessions specifically did not define a canon, it is widely regarded as the canon of the Lutheran Church. It differs from the 1546 Roman Catholic canon of the Council of Trent in that it rejects the Deuterocanonical books and questions the seven New Testament books, called "Luther's Antilegomena",four of which are still ordered last in German-language Luther Bibles to this day.So, different Protestant Churches have different Bibles with different parts left out, based on the views of different Protestant reformers - but Sola Scriptura still holds (it's just who defines the Scriptura that counts).
And what were Luther's reasons for wanting to chop out parts of the Bible?
Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[5]You know if one mad monk can edit the Bible to fit his beliefs, surely others can too. The unity of the church is obviously harmed by this practice, not to mention fidelity to history."If Luther's negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, 2 Peter might have been included among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times."[1] However, the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books makes it evident "that his low view of them was more due to his theological reservations than with any historical investigation of the canon."[1]
The first English Bible was authorized and printed by order of King Henry VIII
King Henry the Eighth funded the printing of the Bible in the English language, the Great Bible, the first Bible ever authorized for public use. Great Bbile Leaf Another Sample Leaf Of course, King Henry the Eighth did not do this because he had a change of heart, or because he was such a devoted Christian. He did it mostly out of personal pride, and to spite the Roman Catholic Church. King Henry wanted to divorce his wife and marry his lover, and the Pope refused to allow even the King of England to do this. So, King Henry just married his lover anyway, (later killing two of his many wives), and renounced the Roman Catholic Church, and proclaimed himself the head of both the State AND the Church (both King and “Pope” so to speak), and founded the Church of England, a.k.a. the Anglican Church.
Still, "Sola Scriptura". As long as it's an "Authorized Version", Catholics are not Christians, but Anglican's are?
If you don't see the absurdity of of this I think you are not really engaging in the topic.
Most people who I have heard make the fantastic claim that Catholics are not Christians were raised in very Evangelical churches. Were you? Religious views like yours are rarely arrived at in middle age, or held by people who have made a fair-minded study of the History of Church.
Sadly, it's also quite common belief among our friends who adhere to the teaching of the Protestant sects.
16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 NASB
Actually, that’s not the Catholic belief. I posted the actual teaching of the Church about two posts back. It it not about “Tradition” at all, as you can see if you read it.
BTW, where does the writer claim the writings he's referring to would come to be considered Scripture?
You are assuming "post-hoc" without any indication from the text that these writings would come to be viewed, and even published together with, what the writer knew as "Scripture."
That's drawing a circle around the arrow that's already been shot, and claiming a bullseye.
Unless you can show me an Biblically based, inspired, “table of contents” your argument turns to dust.
You argue from the premise that Roman Catholicism was the church started by Christ.
When we actually see the Roman Catholic church begin sometime around the 300s.
You also presume that length of time an organization exists is an indication of its legitimacy. The Muslim could make a similar claim as could the Hindu.
In reality, the only way to determine if a belief is correct or not is to examine its doctrines in light of Scripture.
When done so, it is clear the RCC is in error on a great number of issues.
Your attempt at logic fails.
That is patently dishonest. YOU don't get to say what the constitutes Holy Tradition, just as you don't get to say God commanded what He didn't.
And history can point to an even greater number of naughty popes.
Hey, there's even a Catholic on these threads that is currently trashing the current Pope.
When you find the phrase “and nothing else is needed,” they you can make the claim you make.
Till then, you’re just promulgating another cultic teaching.
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.