If the Bible alone is the Word of God, then where does scripture teach that the Word of God is confined to the scriptures alone?
It dosn’t! The Word of God is the person of Jesus Christ.
That explains why the Host tastes like cardboard.
1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Oh, wait. Nevermind. :rolleyes:
My ND Bible study partner points to Rev 22:18-19
I have tried to tell him that “Book” refers to “Book of Revelation”, and the Bible had not yet been compiled at the time Revelation was written.
One that I have had quoted to me, in addition to Revelation, is when Paul says (I believe it is in Timothy) that all Scripture is useful for teaching. But the problem there is that all it says is that it is useful, which is something that every Catholic will agree with. It does not, however, say that it is sufficient.
So if the Bible is not the only Word of God written - what other writings are ?
Deny the unique status of those 27 books, & you let in:
*]the Book of Mormon
*]The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
*]the Urantia Book[/LIST]and every other book in creation. There is no stopping-place, except some totally arbitrary one. Which ignores the fact that canon was chosen not by the Church at all, but by God. The formation of the canon is not the result of mere power to act - it is a recognition of the reality of the character of the books, a submission by the Church to the facts of their character as God’s Word. The Church did not make them God’s Word - it recognised that they were His Word. Canonisation was an act of obedience to His Will - not an autonomous exercise of power & might by the Church. The Church depends upon His slightest Word, which called it out of nothingness, & without which it is nothing & less than nothing.
It is in any case heretical to deny the unique status of the inspired & canonical books.
To deny the unique status of the Holy Bible is in effect to exalt other writings to parity with it, & to lower it to parity them. This is a denial of what God has made to be His uniquely powerful Word. It is a degrading of the Gospel of Christ to an equality with other, unevangelical, writings, which have nothing of Christ or His Cross & salvation in them. This is in turn a denial of faith in Him, & a levelling of Him with all other men. To deny the unique status of His inspired Word, is IOW a form of apostasy.
If we reject the Word of God - why should we obey the words of men ? Undermine the Word of God, & there is no reason to bother with the words of the Church. The Church is safe only if we give unreserved obedience to God, & not to the Church. To se it over Him, is to worship an idol.
It doesn’t. And that’s not the complaint most educated protestants will raise either. The question seems to be more like – if there are extra-biblical sources that can be considered as reliable, what are they, and by what criteria do we define them?
Regardless, the Roman Catholic argument is going to boil down to it all being under the authority of the RCC, and protestants like myself will end up coming back to the question of how we can know whether or not the RCC can validly claim such authority.
Great Michael, so you agree with the 73 books of the canon which the Church decided by the power of God working through them. They were doing the WILL of God as you stated! awesome! It was His will, you said it! Allelujah! We agree.
The church is the body of Christ and the Pillar and foundation of the Truth. the pillar and foundation of Jesus Christ, who is Truth.
In addition, even IF “Book” meant the entire Bible, the passage doesn’t confine the Word of God to the Bible.
Assuming that you are searching for the word of God, where do you expect to find the word of God? Do you expect to find it somewhere else?
What if Adam and Eve (who chose to accept the serpent’s version of God’s word) attempted to use the excuse, “We had no reason to reject what the serpent told us, since you never specifically told us that there is no other source for your word besides yourself.”
Because the serpent did not claim to speak God’s word:rolleyes:
Finally!!! A person who educates themselves and asks the same questions I do! Thank God for you educated Protestants!!
I’d like to see more posts that are looking for areas of unity rather than areas of division.
Here is the summary of Divine Revelation.
The Word of God is Jesus Christ like you said. The words in the Bible is consider the “word of God” but it isn’t incarnated because it is just a collection of stories between God and man which we believed to be inspired. The Word of God is Jesus, a living Person. True God, and Truth Man. The author of Sacred Scripture is God himself.
I think the Catechism sums this up the best.
It’s CCC # 108.
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 which 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.”
I think it is clear enough from the text that the serpent had his own version of what God said which was different from what God said.
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ "
“You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Unfortunately, when we are all basically anonymous, some feel less the need to be nice to one another…:shrug:
the serpent doesn’t say that that is what God wants, for them to eat the apple. The serpent is encouraging disobedience, and Adam and Eve both know it, yet they eat it anyway. The serpent tries to convince Adam and Eve that God was holding out on them, and he succeeds.
ahhhhh, the catechism. what a breath of fresh air concerning any matter of doctrine.