I was talking with a catholic friend of mine, when the topic of bible alone came up. He immediately told me I am following the teachings of Martin Luther and I cant support the idea that the bible is ALL we need. Im new with Christian history- So the idea that my doctrine is all Luthers ideas is wrong- I find a lot through prayer and self-study.The Word is 100% truth, 100% the steps we need to take to recieve salvationIm not sure if this is a CATHOLIC ONLY thing but- Why are most of them so quick to credit other books/writings/historical figures with the importance and truth as the Word?This is not a bashing catholics thread- but i would like some input and some scripture that I can look into for myself. Thanks
Bible is ALL we need?
- Thread starter Red_Letters88
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Am Catholic myself, but have been non-Catholic most of my life (young grandfather, twice over now).We should note that most Christians believe and do things that are not found either explicitly or even implied in the Bible. The Bible itself does not claim to be ALL we need, in fact it implies that there are other things which are important for us to know. In defense of doing/believing those things or "needing" to do/believe those things one must give something else other than the Bible as cause or reason. It must be true that we all believe these extra-biblical things are beneficial, else we would not have them. So why do we do or believe these things. In my experience when the subject is sola scriptura with a Catholic, it is in an attack of a particular Catholic belief or practice. A defense could perhaps be made from scripture by the Catholic, but if the Protestant is already claiming sola scriptura in the matter they are presuming whatever the topic is, that either it cannot be proven from scripture or is unbiblical-goes against scripture. So if the Protestant is already convinced the Bible does not help the Catholic make a case, there is little value in appealing to it (at least not as a primary part of the defense). Of course the person holding to sola scriptura as a defense of any particular thing is in the opposite position. The Bible is the only reference possible when they take that stand.After the Bible, the next thing available to the Catholic would be an appeal to early Christians writing about or shown doing the same thing. While perhaps not convincing as solid proof, it at least shows Christians were doing or believing this long before there was a Roman Catholic Church. And in many cases can be seen appealing to Apostolic teachings/traditions in defense of these beliefs or practices. So these early Christians had and gave reasons for doing or believing these things.Another thought is what do we mean by "need"? If you don't need to be Catholic to get to Heaven (and the Catholic must admit this is true) then it is true in that sense that you do not "need" to believe all or practice all the Catholic does (to get to Heaven).However, we could also look at the same statement about the Bible; if it is ALL I need to get Heaven, then isn't the presumption I cannot get to Heaven without it? If not the presumption, then something less than the Bible is really "all I need". So where do we draw the line of "need"?If a practice or belief is beneficial to my getting to Heaven, then in some sense we can say those things are "needed" for me and we should want that for me because it is helping me to get there. And we could say this about all the things we all do or believe. Just because we say something is not necessary, does not mean it is not beneficial, maybe even VERY beneficial.
(DrBubbaLove;36986)
Am Catholic myself, but have been non-Catholic most of my life (young grandfather, twice over now).We should note that most Christians believe and do things that are not found either explicitly or even implied in the Bible. The Bible itself does not claim to be ALL we need, in fact it implies that there are other things which are important for us to know. In defense of doing/believing those things or "needing" to do/believe those things one must give something else other than the Bible as cause or reason. It must be true that we all believe these extra-biblical things are beneficial, else we would not have them. So why do we do or believe these things. In my experience when the subject is sola scriptura with a Catholic, it is in an attack of a particular Catholic belief or practice. A defense could perhaps be made from scripture by the Catholic, but if the Protestant is already claiming sola scriptura in the matter they are presuming whatever the topic is, that either it cannot be proven from scripture or is unbiblical-goes against scripture. So if the Protestant is already convinced the Bible does not help the Catholic make a case, there is little value in appealing to it (at least not as a primary part of the defense). Of course the person holding to sola scriptura as a defense of any particular thing is in the opposite position. The Bible is the only reference possible when they take that stand.After the Bible, the next thing available to the Catholic would be an appeal to early Christians writing about or shown doing the same thing. While perhaps not convincing as solid proof, it at least shows Christians were doing or believing this long before there was a Roman Catholic Church. And in many cases can be seen appealing to Apostolic teachings/traditions in defense of these beliefs or practices. So these early Christians had and gave reasons for doing or believing these things.Another thought is what do we mean by "need"? If you don't need to be Catholic to get to Heaven (and the Catholic must admit this is true) then it is true in that sense that you do not "need" to believe all or practice all the Catholic does (to get to Heaven).However, we could also look at the same statement about the Bible; if it is ALL I need to get Heaven, then isn't the presumption I cannot get to Heaven without it? If not the presumption, then something less than the Bible is really "all I need". So where do we draw the line of "need"?If a practice or belief is beneficial to my getting to Heaven, then in some sense we can say those things are "needed" for me and we should want that for me because it is helping me to get there. And we could say this about all the things we all do or believe. Just because we say something is not necessary, does not mean it is not beneficial, maybe even VERY beneficial.
(Red_Letters88;36959)
I was talking with a catholic friend of mine, when the topic of bible alone came up. He immediately told me I am following the teachings of Martin Luther and I cant support the idea that the bible is ALL we need.Im new with Christian history- So the idea that my doctrine is all Luthers ideas is wrong- I find a lot through prayer and self-study.The Word is 100% truth, 100% the steps we need to take to recieve salvationIm not sure if this is a CATHOLIC ONLY thing but- Why are most of them so quick to credit other books/writings/historical figures with the importance and truth as the Word?This is not a bashing catholics thread- but i would like some input and some scripture that I can look into for myself. Thanks
Matthew 4:4 - But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.Luke 4:4 - And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.John 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.II Peter 1:20 - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.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:Mark 13:23 - But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.Red Letter, don't listen to them... Man will do anything to destroy people's faith, whether they realize that or not. The Bible alone is what we need, otherwise they will make Yahshua / Jesus Christ alone a LIAR.Please Red Letter, look at the topic under my sig and see what they did with Lord Yahshua / Jesus Christ. I am trying to save souls.JagLovest thou in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
Am Catholic myself, but have been non-Catholic most of my life (young grandfather, twice over now).We should note that most Christians believe and do things that are not found either explicitly or even implied in the Bible. The Bible itself does not claim to be ALL we need, in fact it implies that there are other things which are important for us to know. In defense of doing/believing those things or "needing" to do/believe those things one must give something else other than the Bible as cause or reason. It must be true that we all believe these extra-biblical things are beneficial, else we would not have them. So why do we do or believe these things. In my experience when the subject is sola scriptura with a Catholic, it is in an attack of a particular Catholic belief or practice. A defense could perhaps be made from scripture by the Catholic, but if the Protestant is already claiming sola scriptura in the matter they are presuming whatever the topic is, that either it cannot be proven from scripture or is unbiblical-goes against scripture. So if the Protestant is already convinced the Bible does not help the Catholic make a case, there is little value in appealing to it (at least not as a primary part of the defense). Of course the person holding to sola scriptura as a defense of any particular thing is in the opposite position. The Bible is the only reference possible when they take that stand.After the Bible, the next thing available to the Catholic would be an appeal to early Christians writing about or shown doing the same thing. While perhaps not convincing as solid proof, it at least shows Christians were doing or believing this long before there was a Roman Catholic Church. And in many cases can be seen appealing to Apostolic teachings/traditions in defense of these beliefs or practices. So these early Christians had and gave reasons for doing or believing these things.Another thought is what do we mean by "need"? If you don't need to be Catholic to get to Heaven (and the Catholic must admit this is true) then it is true in that sense that you do not "need" to believe all or practice all the Catholic does (to get to Heaven).However, we could also look at the same statement about the Bible; if it is ALL I need to get Heaven, then isn't the presumption I cannot get to Heaven without it? If not the presumption, then something less than the Bible is really "all I need". So where do we draw the line of "need"?If a practice or belief is beneficial to my getting to Heaven, then in some sense we can say those things are "needed" for me and we should want that for me because it is helping me to get there. And we could say this about all the things we all do or believe. Just because we say something is not necessary, does not mean it is not beneficial, maybe even VERY beneficial.
(Red_Letters88;36959)
I was talking with a catholic friend of mine, when the topic of bible alone came up. He immediately told me I am following the teachings of Martin Luther and I cant support the idea that the bible is ALL we need.Im new with Christian history- So the idea that my doctrine is all Luthers ideas is wrong- I find a lot through prayer and self-study.The Word is 100% truth, 100% the steps we need to take to recieve salvationIm not sure if this is a CATHOLIC ONLY thing but- Why are most of them so quick to credit other books/writings/historical figures with the importance and truth as the Word?This is not a bashing catholics thread- but i would like some input and some scripture that I can look into for myself. Thanks
Matthew 4:4 - But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.Luke 4:4 - And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.John 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.II Peter 1:20 - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.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:Mark 13:23 - But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.Red Letter, don't listen to them... Man will do anything to destroy people's faith, whether they realize that or not. The Bible alone is what we need, otherwise they will make Yahshua / Jesus Christ alone a LIAR.Please Red Letter, look at the topic under my sig and see what they did with Lord Yahshua / Jesus Christ. I am trying to save souls.JagLovest thou in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
am not asking anyone to buy the Catholic case, just suggesting the reasons behind it.Jhn 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. what kinds of things were said by Jesus that are not in the Gospels?Am sure that would be similar things to this;Act 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. What did the Apostles teach about oral tradition?1Cr 11:2 ¶ Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you. 2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them]; By these verses Catholics think it is a mistake to limit "Christ Word" to only what we have in the Bible or to think that everything Jesus taught was written down.Of the commands Jesus gave His desciples He never once told them to go write books or hand out pamplets for people to READ, much less suggest that by reading they could figure it out on their own.Luk 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 2Ti 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
In short. The Bible isn't all we need. Sure the Bible is one of the biggest entities in Christianity. But we also need fellowship with other Christians (this creates a church), the Holy Spirit, and faith.Note: Salvation doesn't require the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit helps ALOT. With it comes gifts of the Holy Spirit. Those help deepen your relationship with God.
The bible is one of those paradoxes where it is the sole authority, yet tells of circumstances outside of itself that we need. I do believe God has given us other witness to His Word, in stone, the stars, and in the flesh Jesus Christ is the incarnate Word. All are In the bible.Let me cite an example. There are people that believe sola scripture. Let's compare that to scouts. We have the boy scout manual. That's all we need. However, the manual has projects for the boys to do---- an to earn their badges they have to do projects and get information from other sources. Yet, the manual said to do that. So, if we truly believe in "only the manual", then we would contradict it by saying that no other source is worthy when indeed, the manual said to go out and find sources of information for the project.I see the same with God's Word. The same Word demonstrates that our very existence, and the events that happen to us personally are mapped out. But if we turn a blind eye to that and look to the bible only for answers, then we may be missing something that the same bible tells us to look for!
(Red_Letters88;36959)
I was talking with a catholic friend of mine, when the topic of bible alone came up. He immediately told me I am following the teachings of Martin Luther and I cant support the idea that the bible is ALL we need. Im new with Christian history- So the idea that my doctrine is all Luthers ideas is wrong- I find a lot through prayer and self-study.The Word is 100% truth, 100% the steps we need to take to recieve salvationIm not sure if this is a CATHOLIC ONLY thing but- Why are most of them so quick to credit other books/writings/historical figures with the importance and truth as the Word?This is not a bashing catholics thread- but i would like some input and some scripture that I can look into for myself. Thanks
I believe Its a matter or worship styles The catholic church was based on oral tradition Most protestant denominations was then based on print reform tradition ... studying the bible New denominations ion the 20th century are based on Broadcast using television , the internet ect ect I think that its just different ways of church worship and getting to jesus not neccesarily the only one. Although the bible is a great start but prayer and worship is also important
I was talking with a catholic friend of mine, when the topic of bible alone came up. He immediately told me I am following the teachings of Martin Luther and I cant support the idea that the bible is ALL we need. Im new with Christian history- So the idea that my doctrine is all Luthers ideas is wrong- I find a lot through prayer and self-study.The Word is 100% truth, 100% the steps we need to take to recieve salvationIm not sure if this is a CATHOLIC ONLY thing but- Why are most of them so quick to credit other books/writings/historical figures with the importance and truth as the Word?This is not a bashing catholics thread- but i would like some input and some scripture that I can look into for myself. Thanks
I believe Its a matter or worship styles The catholic church was based on oral tradition Most protestant denominations was then based on print reform tradition ... studying the bible New denominations ion the 20th century are based on Broadcast using television , the internet ect ect I think that its just different ways of church worship and getting to jesus not neccesarily the only one. Although the bible is a great start but prayer and worship is also important
small point of clarification, the Church is not based on tradition, oral or otherwise. Tradition is just a part of what makes up the Church Doctrine, it is a part of the foundation. There are other parts and they all support each other as any foundation should.
(DrBubbaLove;37603)
small point of clarification, the Church is not based on tradition, oral or otherwise. Tradition is just a part of what makes up the Church Doctrine, it is a part of the foundation. There are other parts and they all support each other as any foundation should.
Christ hates traditions of men. And it does no good at all. Tradition is nowhere near going to be a foundation of what God says...Jag
small point of clarification, the Church is not based on tradition, oral or otherwise. Tradition is just a part of what makes up the Church Doctrine, it is a part of the foundation. There are other parts and they all support each other as any foundation should.
Christ hates traditions of men. And it does no good at all. Tradition is nowhere near going to be a foundation of what God says...Jag
I guess someone forgot to tell Paul about this;2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
(DrBubbaLove;37703)
I guess someone forgot to tell Paul about this;2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
Oh my.Not all traditions are bad. But it's better to follow what God has to say over traditions. But if you're in a ministry, and the organization leader sends you to India, don't go to Taiwan.
I guess someone forgot to tell Paul about this;2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
Oh my.Not all traditions are bad. But it's better to follow what God has to say over traditions. But if you're in a ministry, and the organization leader sends you to India, don't go to Taiwan.
I found this article presenting the Catholic position, started a thread about it as well, since it asks some queastions I've never really heard addressed on TBN.http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0110fea3.asp
Matthew 4:4 - But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.[/
I] But was he reffering expliciltly (sorry can't spell
) to the Bible as we know it now? I mean, the very first christians didn't have a Bible right?
I] But was he reffering expliciltly (sorry can't spell
) to the Bible as we know it now? I mean, the very first christians didn't have a Bible right?Similar threads
