Where's THAT in the Bible?

Question

If everything pertaining to Christian teaching is to be found in the Bible, then it should say somewhere in the Bible that "everything pertaining to Christian teaching is to be found in the Bible". Where does it say that?

I have found the Church in the Bible, and I have found that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of thruth" (1 Timothy 3:15). I have found deacons and bishops in the Book of Acts, but I have nowhere found that everything pertaining to Christian teaching is to be found in the Bible.

Isn't this proof that protestantism and their Bible-only concept is false, and the Catholic belief in an authoratative teaching Church is true?

GOOD READING:
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/sola.html

For the guy who wants to see the pope washing feet:
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200704/r136001_460151.jpg

II Timothy 3:16,17 only says it is useful: It does NOT say its the ONLY source

Answer 1

Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.

Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)

Jesus’ Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, "the Catholic Church," at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it went all the way back to the time of the apostles.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp

Answer 2

Scripture: The Bible is the inerrant word of God and is to be read as the earliest Christians read it: in the light of Tradition and under the guidance of those ordained to teach. The Books of the Old Testament were put together by the Hebrews in the Septuagint (ca 300 B.C.), which includes the seven Books called "Deuterocanonical" by Catholics and "Apocryphal" by Protestants, and was the Old Testament used by the Apostles. The Books of the New Testament were made canonical over time and were first listed over 300 years after the Resurrection.


The idea that all revealed truth is to be found in "66 books" is not only not in Scripture, 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). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament; there was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters. Once Scripture was defined from the many competing books, Bibles were hand-copied and decorated by monks, were rare and precious, so precious they had to be chained down in the churches so that they would not be stolen. Do you think that the lack of printing presses affected the salvation of those who could not peruse Scripture as we have the luxury of doing?






Malachi 2-7
For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.

Answer 3

1) You are correct, this is not in scripture.

2) This is *not* "proof that protestantism and their Bible-only concept is false". Nor is it proof that "the Catholic belief in an authoratative teaching Church is true." Logic should tell you that this is only proof that "sola scriptura" *may* be false, and some other worldly authority *may* exist. Remember, also, that not all Protestant sects agree with the doctrine of "sola scriptura".

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 4

Because sola scriptura is not in the Bible, I obviously can't
answer directly. However, following up the excellent post by Cashelmara, I can show you some verses that contradict sola scriptura.

I Cor 11:2: I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.

Here Paul indicates the usual means of communicating the gospel: Oral teaching. This was the only way Jesus taught.

2 Thess 2:15: So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Paul taught by word of mouth as well as by letter. We are to hold to the word-of-mouth teachings, too.

2 Thess 3:6: In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.

Again, the reference is to oral teachings, not to a written letter. The New Testament was not collected as a body of authoritative writings until 393 AD.

1 Tim 3:15: If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Paul writes that the Church, not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of the truth. That is because without the Church, we have no reliable biblical interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20: 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.

God has primarily given his messages through spoken prophecy, not in writing.

2 Peter 3:16: [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

This last verse seals it: Ignorant and unstable people can distort Scripture to their own destruction. That's why Jesus provided for the Church as an organization that would safeguard his message.

Those cut off from the Church "vine" read the scriptures without understanding and can't explain them. In contrast, Catholics with 2000 years of interpretive history can explain the scriptures in their original meaning.

Cheers,
Bruce

Answer 5

They fail to realize that 2Timothy 3:16-17 is talking about scripture. Scripture is OLD TESTAMENT, not the New Testament. When the pages of Timothy were written there was only the Torah/Old Testament

Answer 6

I like how some are using 2 Tim 3:16, 17 to counter your argument. It is quite the understatement by Paul to describe the Scripture as "useful" if it were intended to be the sole and ultimate authority on faith and doctrine. It is also interesting that any references to Scriptures by Paul by necessity are in reference to the Old Testament.

Answer 7

Romans 15 v 4
1 Corinthians 10 v 11

Answer 8

The Bible was put together by people. It was written by people. As such, it is not 'the' Pillar Of Truth, but only the truth as accepted by those who believe in it. The books of the Bible were very carefully selected from a much larger collection of books written around the same time, and sometimes by the same people. The books that were left out, because they were contradictory, among other reasons, are known as the Apocrypha. The Bible is a fantastic collection, and they contain a lot of history, but it's contents are the works of people with an axe to grind, people with an existing mindset writing about the past and seeing things as they felt they SHOULD be, and almost never as they were.

The minutiae of Christian belief, in all its denominations, is largely the result of people of a much later time (after the death of Christ) putting their own twist on things. Things like the celibacy of priests, women being disallowed to enter the priesthood, the vestments and paraphernalia of the ceremonies. The grandeur of the religious hierarchy, the elevation of Bishops and Cardinals, the kissing of rings and the bowing and scraping of the ordinary people. Things that would horrify Christ if were around. He was allegedly a simple man, but just look what his followers have done in his name!
There is no god, Christ was a good man, but alas, just a man!

Sorry, but that is the fact.

Answer 9

OK Tony C, or anyone else who is confident that Catholic beliefs cannot be supported Biblically, I will take your challenge. Pick any Catholic doctrine and I will debate it with you on a debate forum.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

Answer 10

The actual Teachings of Christ are in the Bible. What else "pertains" to that? The scriptures were hidden away from common folks like me in a dead language which no one knew except for the priests. Now it is available to any and every one in their own native language.
I hope you will not soon be suggesting that heretics like me should be rounded up and burned at the stake like they were in the past for reading the Bible for ourselves without the need of a priest. Need I mention why the Protestant movement took place? The likes of William Tyndale, Martin Luther and John Wycliffe are heroes in my eyes for standing up to the corrupt elements within the Catholic church in their day. I know and respect many Catholic theologians but Catholic leadership has a lot of cleaning up to do pertaining to the Inquisitions, Crusades, conduct of priests and more.

Answer 11

The doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is far too complex of a theological issue to have been overturned so quickly by your simplistic and cursory "observation" here. You haven't proven anything. Now, I don't care who is right (the Catholics or the Protestants) but I am very intrigued with theology. I would suggest you dive deeper into this issue rather than to get a false sense of conviction and assurance because of your simple observation. I would recommend reading authoritative works by theologians on both sides of the debate. But don't stop there. Read their critiques of one anothers' views. Don't even stop there. Also consider rebuttals to objections raised by each side. Only a counterpoint type forum will really allow for you to gain a deep understanding of your side and the other side -- even an appreciation for the other side. Too often, people get such a satisfaction as if they have "figured it all out." But they haven't even completed a full analysis of opposing viewpoints. You can't fully understand your view if you haven't intimately learned the other view and why they reject yours. They have a false sense of satisfaction and a weak basis of conviction. TRUE understanding is FULL understanding.

On a hermeneutical note, your argument is pretty weak and has little merit or weight to it. You can't form an argument from silence. You can't argue that something isn't so just because it isn't mentioned. You can't say that sola scriptura is false just because there isn't a verse that says "Bible only." That's a very basic rule of hermeneutics and biblical interpretation.