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.

[MHGinTN]

When John said, ‘Behold the Lamb of God’ was Jesus memntraily transubstantiated into a sheep baby? When Jesus called the contents of the cup ‘wine’ and said He would not drink IT again until in the Kingdom, was the contents not wine? Did GOD issue command on more than one occasion in the OT to not eat the blood? And did the first council of believers (found in Acts) meeting in Jerusalem repeat the admonition against eating blood in the letter they sent to the believers? Are you yet so dense?

[papertyger]

I base my OPINIONS on what I’ve seen Christ do in the scripture.

Why bother discussing anything with you if you're going to prevaricate right out of the box.

The statement I quoted from you was a declarative sentence. No more. No less.

[papertyger]

Um, actually it is the CATHOLICS who have been taught they cannibalize JESUS’s real body, blood, soul and DIVINITY. Now THAT is the height of arrogance!... And in a wheat wafer no less!

Be that as it may, WE'RE not the ones who screech and accuse like an offended Pharisee because someone points out boldfaced lies we tell about the Bible supporting our man made doctrines.

You can make all the fun you want of annulments, but WE'RE not the ones who have flatly rejected Christ's teachings without even a doctrinally consistent rationale.

[FatherofFive]

Did GOD issue command on more than one occasion in the OT to not eat the blood?

You really should try to read the words of Scripture

Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53

[af_vet_1981]

... “All the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) were Catholic.” Was Paul an early church father in the Catholic Church?

Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, a spiritual father as noted in the scriptures, and part of the foundation of the one holy catholic apostolic church.

καθ’ ὅλης = kath' holes = throughout all

And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him. Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus. Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

...

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Acts, Catholic chapter nine, Protestant verses twenty six to thirty one,

Ephesians, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses eleven to twenty two,

as authorized, but not authored, by King James

By the term Early Church Fathers (ECFs) I mean a list like this:

The following are early church fathers and apologists of the first and second centuries.

[HarleyD]

I wouldn’t disagree with any of those statements. But I’m not the one arguing for tradition over scripture. Nor am I the one questioning the accuracy of the God-breathed inspired word of God. The book was closed 1600 years ago on what constituted the “sacred scriptures” and every verse, every line is complete for my teaching and edification. And just as your Catechism states, there is nothing more that needs to be added or removed.

What your verses point out is just how out of sync the Church is with its own Catechism. Building dogma and theology off external sources and questionable interpretation of verses is a dangerous practice. What the Pope may write down today does not rise to the level of sacred scripture.

[MHGinTN]

So you will not answer the questions. Figures ... you and papermache have Magic Thinking strong with you.

[MHGinTN]

“... and part of the foundation of the one holy catholic apostolic church.” You are mistaken in including Paul in your religious organization. But you will find out how far off from the truth your are soon. Your mind is owned by the org you bow to. Sad That.

[af_vet_1981]

The book was closed 1600 years ago on what constituted the “sacred scriptures” and every verse, every line is complete for my teaching and edification.

Thank you for affirming your Bible was settled at council 1600 years ago.

The Council of Carthage, called the third by Denzinger,[5] issued a canon of the Bible on 28 August 397.

It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two Books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. Because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept.

[af_vet_1981]

You are mistaken in including Paul in your religious organization.

I'm not sure whether that argument is that Paul was not a valid apostle or that the Gentiles were not part of the one holy catholic apostolic church. Either way it is erroneous as Paul was a valid apostle and the Gentile were part of the one holy catholic apostolic church. As referenced in my previous post, the Gentiles were "no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;"

[Elsie]

Rather, I believe in one holy catholic apostolic church teaching with authority from the time of the apostles unto this day.

I believe that your 'holy catholic apostolic church'; teaching with self proclaimed 'authority' from the time of the apostles screwed up badly by SHOWING how effective it's 'teaching' was in John Revelation; CHAPTERS 2&3!!

[Elsie]

This is a far cry from what the early church fathers taught.

Ya think??

Now the Bereans were more noble than those in Thess...

[Elsie]

Every time you post that, I read it with such awe.

Aw...  shucks...

 

[Elsie]

The one holy catholic church had no schism between eastern and western branches until 1054.

So; just what do YOU call the wonderful teaching found in Revelation chapters 2&3

Unity??

[Elsie]

Who appointed YOU minister of "God would've?"

Who appointed ROME minister of "God COULD have?"

[Elsie]

You can include the entire Bible as a source (rather than the nebulous "Rome") and it still won't change the obvious play on words you rage against for the sake of your tortured, man-made, doctrine.

“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]

I'm sure being blasphemous and profane has much to do with it.

Oh?

Why do you say that?

[Elsie]

Pointing out things that we do that don’t line up with YOUR made up doctrines doesn’t help your inconsistencies, and doesn’t hurt our doctrines except with those looking to show our doctrines don’t meet your standards, either.

Sorry, PT, but I've not commented on MY doctrines.

I've posted words from the bible that do NOT line up with what Rome is teaching.

I'm just a lowly messenger.

Perhaps on the order of Balaam's ride.

[Elsie]

You have a LOT of wants, it seems.

[Elsie]

Why do you not believe the plain words of Scripture? Why do you believe "This is My Body" does not mean "This IS My Body?"

Why do you not believe the plain words of Scripture? Why do you believe that calling your spiritual teacher FATHER is somehow ok because ROME says you can?