Is the idea that all revealed truth is to be found in "66 books" is not only not in Scripture?

Question

it is contradicted by Scripture? (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16).

Our Lord founded a Church (Matthew 16:18-19), not a book, which was to be the pillar and ground of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15). We can know what this Church teaches by looking not only at Sacred Scripture, but into History and by reading what the earliest Christians have written.

To believe that the Bible is our only source of Christian Truth is unbiblical and illogical. Either you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is correct or you are not. If you are infallibly certain then you assert for yourself and of course for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility.

Of the hundred and more Christian sects [we have thousands of denominations today] now existing in this country, does not each take the Bible as its standard of authority and does not each member draw from it a meaning different from that of his neighbor? Now, in the mind of God the Scriptures can have but one meaning. Is not this variety of interpretations the bitter fruit of your principle, an infallible Bible is enough for me, and does it not proclaim the absolute necessity of some authorized and unerring interpreter?

Answer 1

Is the Bible the "pillar of truth" in the Christian religion? No. According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the "pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible. Some "Bible" Christians insist that a "pillar" (the Church) was created to "hold up" another structure (the Bible). They claim the Bible is the structure being held up according to this passage. Well, if that is the case, how did the early Church "hold up" the Bible for the first three to four hundred years when the Bible Itself didn't even exist? Also, even if the Church is only a "pillar" holding up the Bible, doesn't that mean that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture rather than the individual?
Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, "NO" (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the "founder" of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of the Bible. Luther opened a "Pandora's Box" when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. Why do we have over 20,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individuals' "different" interpretations of the Bible.
Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 33,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "Truth" (i.e., the correct interpretation of the Bible)? For that matter, aren't ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming "infallibility" when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Catholics only believe in the infallibility of the Papacy as an office. Which is more believable - one office holding infallibility or 400 million non-Catholic Christians who can't agree on the interpretation of Scripture all claiming "infallibility?" When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No." Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.
Is the Bible the sole "teaching from God?" No. The Bible Itself states that their are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers "Sacred Apostolic Tradition." This type of "Tradition" never changes because it was passed down by the Apostles themselves. It is not the same as the man-made traditions condemned in Scripture. The man-made traditions condemned in Scripture were those of the Jewish Pharisees. In fact, as Christians, we are suppose to disassociate ourselves from persons who do not follow Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 3:6). If oral tradition is not to be followed, why did St. Paul state Christ said something that is not recorded in the Gospels (Acts 20:35)? St. Paul must have "heard" this saying, not read it from any Gospel or "Scripture," thereby, proving that some things Christ said were not recorded in the Gospels (John 21:25) and were passed on orally among His disciples instead, but were just as valid as anything written since St. Paul himself used one of these oral passages in one of his own epistles.
Did Jesus Christ write down any part of the New Testament with His own hand? No, He did not. If the Bible was to be the sole authority of the Church, shouldn't the Founder have written down His Own teachings? Shouldn't He have at least stated something similar to the following: "the written works of My disciples will be the authority upon which My Church is based?"
Didn't Jesus Christ with His own mouth instruct His disciples to "write down" His teachings? No. With the possible exception of the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) by St. John the Apostle, Jesus Christ gives no such instructions to any of His disciples or Apostles. In fact, only the Apostles Sts. Peter, John, James, Jude and Matthew were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture. Why were the other seven not inspired of the Holy Spirit to "write" if the "written" Word of God is the ONLY authority to be followed in the Christian religion?
Does the Bible state It is the sole or final authority of Christianity? No. Neither this statement nor anything even close to it appears anywhere in the New Testament. In fact, Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture (Matthew 18:17).

Answer 2

You are right.

The Bible is not the authority on all truth of a natural scientific kind like geography, geology,biology,paleontology,astromony,etc

The Bible is "crystalized Mosaic and Apostolic Tradition" and needs to be interpreted in that Tradition with Reason/Natural Law by the Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church, which alone has full authority to recognize and interpret and apply Scripture in Tradition.

The Bible Alone is not biblical

Answer 3

Not EveryThing (All Truth) is Revealed in "The Bible".
The Bible has in it "The Word of GOD" and is Supported by The Holy Spirit.

Even Though "EveryThing" is not Discussed in the Bible, There is Enough "Word of GOD" in the Bible to get you Into Touch WITH "The Author" Jesus Christ Risen from the Dead.

Then Through HIM, and "Revealed Knowledge", you can Learn Alot of Other Things too.

I Really don't Think, at this Time, that GOD Almighty (Jesus) could Tell us EveryThing, our minds couldn't Handle it!!!

Some Things are Really Too "High Up" for us at this time.
Hope this Helps.

Answer 4

weird how so called bible christians main authority even expresses that it is not the sole source of authority. they need to evaluate very seriously what they believe, which came first the church or the bible? please brothers and sisters in christ research this and you will find the catholic church gave us the bible, 73 BOOKS. if you claim 66 books are only inspires please explain to me why from the seven disputed books jesus quotes from them 300 times, if they are not inspired or of any value why did our lord quote and teach from them? secondly all 73 books were accepted by the first christians and it wasn't untill the 16th century that anyone opposed them, then ask why and who opposed them, the foul mouthed martin luther who struggled with himself and his lack of understandin who also wanted to delete the book of hebrews and revelations, the man even added words to the book of romans and shortened other books,for example daniel and esther. if i recall revelations warns about adding to and taking away from the "book". the discrepencies are endless needless to say the catholic church is the church established by jesus and just like jesus the church is the same yesterday today and forever.

Answer 5

I am not sure exactly what you mean here, I have read those verses, To my understanding you are asking are all revealed truth written in the bible, That question has a 2 fold application, to a certain point yes, but after that certain point, No, Because Daniel & John the Revelator saw things & heard things & they both were about to write what they heard & saw, & God said write it not, but seal it up until the endtime, therefore God will have a BRIDE here on this earth at the endtime that will know when those things that was sealed up until the end means. And only the BRIDE will heard & know them.

Answer 6

No, it is not at all contradicted.

Here's why...

Good hermeneutical principles tell us that we need to understand the context in which the Apostle is writing by understanding what the exegetical background of the book is.

See first, the Apostle was acting under the direction of the Holy Spirit in his ministry to the different Churches, so when he told them something aloud, it was as good as writing it down. Because the truth is, what he told them, he later wrote down. Often times it says 'as I told you in person, or as I told you before' This indicates that the Apostle's message was previously given in person, and now is given in written format.

Answer 7

No, It is not contradicted. When interpreting scripture you must not smash your understandings in this culture into the text. You must practice exigesus when reading the Bible. Paul clearly says in 2 timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right."

What we fail to understand is that at this time there was no Bible as we know it today. Only the leadership of the temple and scholars had access to the scripture therefore the scripture was given to the people by letter and word of mouth. That is what Paul is referring to in the references you make out of Paul's letters.
I'm not sure what you are reading into 2 Peter but I would submit that when Peter says, "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." this is supports Paul's accurate portrayal of scripture being inspired by God. These word spoke from God where written down by men and are what we have as the Bible. The letters written by Paul and the entire new testament are also inspired by God because the writers where appointed by God . This is reveled in Act 9:15 when Jesus told Ananias "This man is my chosen instrument" and through his instrument he instructed the early church in correct doctrine by word of mouth and letter.

Today we have God gifted teachers of the scripture and there words and written works could be classified as God inspired but they do not revel new truth. God's truth has been reveled and the book is closed. And that truth is that we by nature are sinners, the penalty of sin is death in Hell and that only through repentance and faith alone in our Lord Jesus Christ can we be made Holy and enter the kingdom of heaven.


Edit*
Sorry brother, what you are professing is dangerous. To say the Bible is not the only source of God's truth dishonors God's plan of salvation. As it says in Revelations 22:18, If anyone try to add or take away from God's word as reveled through his book, will most definitely take the brunt of God's wrath.

I leave you with this.

Is God’s comfort too little for you?
Is his gentle word not enough?
What has taken away your reason?
What has weakened your vision
Job 15:11,12

Answer 8

Bingo! (No pun intended). All of these passages point to a authority outside of Scripture - known as Apostolic Succession. Jesus, before one pen was set to papyrus, or whatever, gave his authority to the Apostles and he gave his Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. The Bible is part of that, but we know this because of the authority conferred upon the Apostles (and their successors).

Answer 9

Exactly.

And to Dan, is not the "spirit of truth" an outside authority?

Answer 10

If that were so, there will be no need for the Spirit of Truth. Things are being discovered. The particulars of what we believe in may be changed.