How much of the Bible is necessary?

Here is your Proof if you care to go read it.

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/list.htm

Saint John

 

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. 21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.


Saint John

 

It is an axiom of Protestantism, even though the Bible never says this, that "everything that is neccessary for our salvation is contained in the Bible. In reading this thread however noone seems to want to stick out there neck and say that reading the Bible is neccessary for our salvation. Or that, parts of the Bible aren't really neccessary for our salvation. It seems to me in reading this thread that this axiom of Protestantism goes against the grain of assured salvatoin.

Blessings

 

No, reading the Bible is not necessary to our salvation.

1 Corinthians 1:17-18 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

The preaching of the cross is necessary to salvation.
Paul was sent to preach the gospel. The gospel is necessary to salvation. The preahing of the cross, and preaching the gospel are one and the same message. One does not need a Bible to preach the gospel, though he needs to know what the Bible says the gospel is.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All Scripture is inspired and profitable.
You don't have to know that David killed Goliath to preach the gospel. It isn't necessary for a person to get saved to have that bit of knowledge. Nor do you have to know the age of Methusaleh, or how old Jacob was when he died.

But all of the Bible is profitable to the believer, and all of it should be studied. All of it is necessary, or else God would not have put it there for our edification and learning. Everything that we need to know about God is contained within the pages of the Bible. We are commanded to study it. But not everything there is essential to salvation.
It is really that simple.
DHK

 

THe Bible - every word - every jot - every tittle

is necessary for making wise unto salvation
is necessary for reproof
is necessary for doctrine
is necessary for correction
is necessary for instruction in righteousness

How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? How can one preach without something to preach

For ALL things the Bible is necessary

 

Neccessary = profitable? (2 Tim 3:16)

Noone had what was called a Bible before the 4th Century so they were all damned to hell?

Does one have to have the New and the Old Testament?


I do not intend to diminish the words of scripture. Niether should they be misquoted or exagerated. Please give evidence that the word neccessary should be used in the sentences you have written above as I do not see the work in 2 Tim 3. Actually, in the Greek from what I understand the words of 2 Tim 3 refer to "every scripture" as in each, individually so this verse is very much abused by Protestants as speaking of the whole Bible being the sole rule of faith. This of course makes much more sense as this is what Jesus did many times. For example in the desert with satan, each time satan would tempt him he would reprove him, not with the whole Bible but an individual scripture. That is the intent of 2 Tim 3.

Blessings

 

*sigh*

What is the Bible?

a) a collection of verses/ writings that can be broken down into non-Biblical things
b) the living breathing Word of God that existed WITH GOD, before Adam was even a sparkle in God's eye?

If you say (a) - You are wrong, and here's why

If I say that God so loves the world that He sent His only begotten Son, that whomever should believe in Him should not perish but have everlasting life

Im not just typing a sentence, a verse, I am typing the Bible, I am typing the very spoken and written words of GOD - these words support the very fabric of creation - these words are designed to be together, unified - Gen 1:1 - has relevance to oh Matthew 1:6 or Isaiah whatever

 

What is the Bible?

a) a collection of verses/ writings that can be broken down into non-Biblical things
b) the living breathing Word of God that existed WITH GOD, before Adam was even a sparkle in God's eye?

Sigh. I know full well what the Bible is.

"If you say (a) - You are wrong, and here's why"

Why would I say a. But your equating b with your interprations and opinions of what the Bible means requires infallibility. Are you ready to declare that your interprutations are errorless.

"If I say that God so loves the world that He sent His only begotten Son, that whomever should believe in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"

Amen. I agree, what is your point.


"Im not just typing a sentence, a verse, I am typing the Bible, I am typing the very spoken and written words of GOD - these words support the very fabric of creation - these words are designed to be together, unified - Gen 1:1 - has relevance to oh Matthew 1:6 or Isaiah whatever "

Your typing the Bible? Oh, I agree that it all fits together. But once again it is intertwined with the traditions we have been taught by others. Once again do you claim infallibility.

Your post is piontless. You still have not answered my question. profitable = neccessary?

Thanks for stopping by.

blessings

 

I answered your question: definitively, and clearly. Why haven't you accepted it?
DHK

 

I answered your question: definitively, and clearly. Why haven't you accepted it?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps you believe you are the center of the universe. Then again, perhaps I wasn't responding to you.

blessings

 

Fine profitable equals necessary


You cannot be saved without God

How can you know or react to God unless God speaks to you or to someone else?


Words of God - ie God's Word ie Bible

it is not written just for Christians but for [B}ALL{/B} humanity - for every instance - every possibility, everything under the sun - is outlined either directly or can be by principle be directly inferred

True intrepretations can be wrong, but that is not the fault of God - it is ours; and that is why the Bible is so necessary - it allows us flawed humans in the saved and unsaved state glimpses of the divine.

 

The Catholic church has protected the Scriptures for 2000 years!!?? What? Dont make me laugh!
Just as the originator of this post has shown, you papists do nothing but make feeble attempts at trying to shake us Baptitsts belief in God's Word.
If it wasnt for the reformation we wouldnt even be having this conversation right now. The RC Church didnt preserve the Bible. They kept it from people.

 

The RC Church didnt preserve the Bible. They kept it from people.

And the willful ignorance continues on..

 

"If it wasnt for the reformation we wouldnt even be having this conversation right now. The RC Church didnt preserve the Bible. They kept it from people. "

Yes, I know, they chained those Bibles, that took a year and 20 men to copy that they hated so much that they put precious gold in the bindings, to the pulpits so those peasants couldn't carry them off to their homes where they could watch them collect dust because they couldn't read. Those wicked priests then forced them to sit in Church where they read those scriptures that they hated so bad to these people. Meanwhile back in merry old england, King Henry VIII, the beloved promoter of Protestantism in that country because he wanted to be divorced, burned the Tyndale Bibles. Such love for God's Holy Word (if that is in fact what the venom laced Tyndale versions were). Sarcam over.

 

"Fine profitable equals necessary"

We better update our dictionarys because I can't find any that list these two words as synonymous. I wonder why those translaters didnt use the word neccessary in 2 Tim 3:16 to make it more clear. Must be corruption.


"You cannot be saved without God"

AMEN!


"How can you know or react to God unless God speaks to you or to someone else?"

AMEN AGAIN!


"Words of God - ie God's Word ie Bible"

You equate WOG with the Bible. Now I do agree that the Bible is the WOG but is the WOG the Bible as in completely contained in the Bible, including explicit understandings. 2:Thes 2:15: Hold fast the the Traditionssss you have recieved, whether by WORD OF MOUTH or in letter from us.
Seems Paul acknowledged both an Orally spoken and written (scriptural) authority. I do not see any verse in the Bible that says that the Bible contains the whole explicit word of God. Prehaps you can prove this equation is true: WOG = (and is only equal) to Scripture. Once again be assured that I agree that scripture is the WOG.

"it is not written just for Christians but for [B}ALL{/B} humanity - for every instance - every possibility, everything under the sun - is outlined either directly or can be by principle be directly inferred "

So who does the inferring? Is the inferring infallibly inferred by anyone? What makes your inferring better than mine?

"True intrepretations can be wrong, but that is not the fault of God - it is ours; and that is why the Bible is so necessary - it allows us flawed humans in the saved and unsaved state glimpses of the divine."

Seems like God must have left a way for his truth to be known. Tell me what is the pillar and support of the truth?

Blessings

 

We don't need it for anything, in a strict sense. It happens to be useful for a great many things however.

Are you just trying to get one of these hardshellers to say the bible is necessary for salvation? </font>[/QUOTE]I use it to keep my coffee table firmly on the floor!

 

"We prohibit also the permitting of the laity to have the books of the old and new testament, unless any one should wish, from a feeling of devotion, to have a psaltery or breviary for divine service, or the hours of the blessed Mary. But we strictly forbid them to have the above mentioned books in the vulgar tongue."

Decree by the council of Valencia in the year 1229 when placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.

The Council of Trent reaffimed that decree and prohibited the use of Scripture by any member of thr church unless he obtained perrmission from his superior:

"In as much as it is manifest, from the experience, that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the temerity of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it; it is, on this point, referred to the judgement of the bishops, or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible transated into the vulgar tongueby Catholic authors , to those persons whose faith and piety, they apprehend, will be augmented, and not injured by it; and this permission they must have in writing."

Now I am not saying that the RC church doesnt allow their voteries to read the Bible today, which they only allow as a reaction to the fact that they have lost many people to the Baptist Church and other Gospel preaching churches, but historically this was not the case.

 

You don't need the sarcasm. It was the Catholic Church that promoted the hatred of the Bible, which they indeed did have. Tyndale's tranlslation was the first into the English language, so that the common person was finally able to read it--something that the Catholic Church wanted to avoid at all costs. When Tyndale's translation arrived in England, the Catholics purchased as many copies as possible only for the purpose of burning them so that the common person would not have access to them. Then they went after Tyndale himself. Tyndale was in Antwerp out of the jurisdiction of the Cahtolics. He was captured and taken to a place where he could be tried for Catholic heresy. He was then strangled to death and his body burned to ashes. All for what? For translating the Bible into the language of the people. What kind of translation was it? It still forms 90% of the KJV that we read today. It was undoubtedly the best translation of his day and remained so throughout many centuries. The Catholic Church hated to see the Bible in the hands of the common person; it always did.
DHK

 

"We prohibit also the permitting of the laity to have the books of the old and new testament, unless any one should wish, from a feeling of devotion, to have a psaltery or breviary for divine service, or the hours of the blessed Mary. But we strictly forbid them to have the above mentioned books in the vulgar tongue."

Decree by the council of Valencia in the year 1229 when placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.

The Council of Trent reaffimed that decree and prohibited the use of Scripture by any member of thr church unless he obtained perrmission from his superior:

"In as much as it is manifest, from the experience, that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the temerity of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it; it is, on this point, referred to the judgement of the bishops, or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible transated into the vulgar tongueby Catholic authors , to those persons whose faith and piety, they apprehend, will be augmented, and not injured by it; and this permission they must have in writing."

Now I am not saying that the RC church doesnt allow their voteries to read the Bible today, which they only allow as a reaction to the fact that they have lost many people to the Baptist Church and other Gospel preaching churches, but historically this was not the case.
</font>[/QUOTE]Round and round we go. Psalm, the lie you speak is quite verifiable. There was no council of Valencia in 1229. Never happened. Valencia in fact in 1229 was in the hands of the Moslems, check it out. You don't even have to look in Catholic history books for that one. There was a prohibition of Bible reading (a paritcular Bible) in France at Toulouse. That being because it was a corrupt versoin of the Bible by men who wanted to justify extramarital sex and a dual God, evil and good, theory and translated a Bible to support such nonsense. So it was impossible for such a council to be held. As for the list of forbidden books, there was no such list in 1229. No list existed before 1500 or so. So you have shown your true colors once again. You misunderstand trent of course because your pride leads you to think you can figure out the truth by yourself reading your own Bible. It does not prove that the Catholic Church was against Bible reading, but it was against twisting and distorting the scriptures to the destruction of the individual and those who he infects with his viral teachings. This hardly seems to matter in anything goes protestantism in which a man, thrown out of a Church is just a new denomination.

DHK, I'm not going to waste my time with your biggoted nonsense.