Is the Bible's Message Complete?

Quecat »

Fri May 16, 2008 2:03 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Spot on!, Daniel !
To God be the glory. :)

Daniel Paul »

Fri May 16, 2008 1:50 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

There are those who say causing division is wrong. Jesus caused division. Paul was talking about those who divide AWAY from the truth of the Gospel. Luther sought to remove the humanism which had become obvious in the church of the day. He posted almost 100 statements to the door of the church which were all based on clear Biblical principle.

What did the church do? The same as the religious leaders in the day of Christ. "Who does this Luther think he is questioning what WE say is right." It was the arrogance of the church which caused the division by not following it's own rules concerning addressing questions brought to it.

The Bible is clear about 'dividing' ourselves from those things that are not Biblical. Unsubmissive man has no desire to submit to God and His word as the final authority (check out California....) and they defend what they believe instead of what the Bible clearly and simply says.

Daniel Paul »

Fri May 16, 2008 1:43 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Vaho...that was his point. "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, that no one should boast." Eph 2:8-9

There is a concept in theology called the "total depravity of man" which this verse supports. The second law of thermal dynamics also supports this concept. In short, there is nothing good in man except what God puts there. Man left to himself with go from a state of order to a state of disorder.

The problem is man doesn't want to believe he really needs to be saved from who he is. He doesn't want to accept that we are sinners who need to be saved by grace. We don't want to believe we need Jesus to do anything rightous (which is different from what we call 'good').

mike »

Fri May 16, 2008 1:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

christians do not even admit they are wrong. so how can you say that they are humble & they need correcting. they do not know the difference bet correcting & judging. when you rebuke them with the same issue, they will be insulted & say the 'ye not judge me.'
and I believe the article here says that is the bible complete & not about mr manson.

Vaho »

Fri May 16, 2008 11:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

"Since this page is a Billy Graham article I recall Mr. Graham once saying the only difference between himself and Charles Manson was the grace of God. That pretty much spells it right out!"

The only thing that kept Graham from murdering people for the fun of it was his belief in God? That's disgusting.

Daniel Paul »

Wed May 14, 2008 6:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I done flagged myself. It's kind-o hard to spell check yourself in this tiny box!

Oh now Mike...you've read some of my other posts in other places....

Since this page is a Billy Graham article I recall Mr. Graham once saying the only difference between himself and Charles Manson was the grace of God. That pretty much spells it right out!

Yes, a pharasee by any other name.... They're still around and still playing godly for all to see. I tend to focus on Jesus for what Jesus is like. The Bible talks about being humble and correcting those who need it in a humble way knowing that except for the grace of God you would be the one being corrected.

Except for the grace of God go I.... For those who are saved you would be beating a dead horse as we are to have died to self.

mike »

Wed May 14, 2008 2:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

so funny, christians are quick to point to sin but if their sins are exposed, they get defensive & insulted. just like the pharisees, they do not want to be lectured. also, the arrogant self righteous sinless attitude of the pharisees is biblical. but it is not discussed in websites & blogs like this one.

Daniel Paul »

Wed May 14, 2008 11:09 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

I have enough trouble with "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself." Once I have those two down pat I'll worry about more!

msnchris70 »

Tue May 13, 2008 3:10 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

Quecat,

I am not saying in the least that the Catholic Church didn't need reformation. I am simply stating that other reformers like St. Charles Borromeo, St. Francis of Assisi, Saint Catherine of Sienna created Reforms by doing in in the Scope of what the Scriptures clearly advocate. You must work within the Hiearchy and you must work in cooperation with the whole Body of Christ and not just go it on your own.

I do not wish to demonize Luther at all, but merely point out that his personality led to the ultimate division. Saint Paul says to avoid those who cause Division within the Body. He was bombastic in his approach, Belligerant and was well documented to have a psychosis. St. Francis and others who reformed the Church did it within the Structures of the Church and did it according to Scripture.

Isn't it a little Ironic for Luther to say go by Scripture alone, and yet do things contrary to Scripture? I did recently read Justo Gonzales two volume books and they were Great, thanks!

Online4Him »

Tue May 13, 2008 2:22 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Chris333,

The principle of not "adding' or 'taking away' from God's Word is what these passages are referring to. It is self evident the the Old and Testaments compliment each other and extra biblical dogmas are not needed nor necessary as Graham highlights in this article.

Quecat »

Tue May 13, 2008 1:20 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 1

You seem to wish to demonize Luther as the instigator of some unspeakable evil. However the Reformation was only the culmination of several hundred years of various sincere biblical scholars questioning RCC dogma and traditions and breaking with Rome out of conscience. Luther's posting of his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg was not the spark that lit the fires of reformation - merely fuel for the existing flames. Does the name John Wycliffe ring a bell?

If not for these daring men of God, would we yet be struggling to read the scriptures from the Latin Vulgate - if we were allowed personal copies at all?

For further reading - I would highly suggest "The Story of Christianity" Volumes I & II, by Justo Gonzales.

Strudelcookies »

Tue May 13, 2008 11:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

>>and what happens after a person becomes a believer. he is given an endless 'to do' list & if he / she misses one of them, then you are a failure or god will not answer your prayer.<<

This is bizarre but I totally agree with it! I LIKE the endless to-do list, and it's true, I've noticed that when I'm argumentive or have done something wrong, God *won't* answer my prayer, and I don't feel his influence. Luckily, though, because of repentance and working harder to become a better person, I'm able to gain that back and feel his influence in me. I think Christianity's real message isn't everything is your fault, but that every day a person needs to try to be better.

Strudelcookies »

Tue May 13, 2008 11:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

This is turning the discussion a little inside-out, but doesn't it seem like every person has their own "Bible"? Or rather, a book or method of thought that they govern the principles of their lives by? Some people's Bible *is* the Bible, you can tell by how they act. Other people say they believe in the Bible, but when they're doing drugs or arguing with people, you wonder if they actually believe in some other bible. I have a friend who belongs to a religion but is religiously devoted to art. When someone came to him asking for help on an art project, he saw that they were good, and was afraid they would be taking clients away from him. So he told the kid to not become an artist. It seems that if he really believed in the Bible, and was trying to follow it's Christ-like principles, his response would've been different. Art was his bible instead the real Bible. So's, maybe we can look at ourselves and see if our daily bibles complement the real Bible. Just a crazy non-sequitor.

msnchris70 »

Tue May 13, 2008 11:27 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 9

Thank you all for the THUMBS down.

I would rather stand by the Testimony of those who knew the Apostles and their Disciples, than someone like Luther who was also going to throw out SEVEN OTHER BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT on HIS OWN AUTHORITY.

My point: Alone LUther has no authority. There was no ecumenical council to discuss the books of the OT. Even the Pope doesn't act this dictatorial in matters of faith and morals.
You must listen to the entire body of Christ and to not consider the earliest Christian witnesses is just plain foolish.

Luther was a renegade and while he had some very valid points, his well know psychosis and BiPolar personality should be considered. He simply did not work within the system, which is Bishop, Priest and Deacon established by God. Luther acted directly against Scripture on how to handle these things. Yes, the indulgences were a HUGE mistake and absolutely wrong. But in Luther's childlike fashion of ranting and raving he went to the extreme. Extremists should never be allowed to be leaders of groups because they lack many of the Cardinal Virtues.

Luther had a divisive personality and this is attested to in many writings while he was a professor. How can a divisive person create unity or reformation? God allowed division in the Body of Christ and until all Protestants come home you will continue to divide and suffer even further fragmentation. Today, each person of the Protestant Christian faith is their own Pope and that is exactly the problem.

You all agree that you are not Catholic, but you all haven't agreed on anything else since then.

Chris333 »

Tue May 13, 2008 10:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

Online4Him,

Haven't seen you in a while. A little bit of difficulty in the Old Testament accounts of the Bible saying that we are not to add to it: Deuteronomy was written before a great deal of the OT books, thus if Deuteronomy was to be the end, then these would be wrongful additions. This argument can be used against any part in the Bible wich says something similar.

Online4Him »

Tue May 13, 2008 9:58 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you - Deuteronomy 4:2.


Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar - Proverbs 30:6


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:

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 - Revelation 22:18, 19.

holito8 »

Tue May 13, 2008 7:57 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

bible's message complete? no
and what happens after a person becomes a believer. he is given an endless 'to do' list & if he / she misses one of them, then you are a failure or god will not answer your prayer. christianity's message is always pointed to sin even if you become a believer & it is always your fault.

Mike, you are wrong. Yes if you sin it is your fault. However, the Lamb has been slain for all of your sins. 1 John 1:7, 9 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

ML »

Mon May 12, 2008 10:15 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 0

I think Quecat states a more logical argument than msnchris70. Of the writing of many books there is no end. A list of theologians who embraced the Apocrypha is an inductive argument, though perhaps not a conculsive argument. The early King James scholars used Erasmus' compilation of Greek manuscripts, and Erasmus was a Catholic, and under the pressure of the Catholic system. So the King James translation, although one of the best, is still neither conclusive nor authoritative on whether or not the Apocrypha should be included in the canon of accepted Scriptures. Protestants will continue to use a 66 book Bible, without the Apocrypha, and probably continue to protest the Roman Catholic church's various doctrines which they disagree with. However, it is God who decides who is right, and what His word is. The Bible, in its Old and New Testaments, is the complete word of God. It is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. We don't need extra books such as the Apocrypha, Book of Mormon, etc, to save or sanctify us.

mike »

Mon May 12, 2008 9:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 8

bible's message complete? no
and what happens after a person becomes a believer. he is given an endless 'to do' list & if he / she misses one of them, then you are a failure or god will not answer your prayer. christianity's message is always pointed to sin even if you become a believer & it is always your fault.

Wilderness1 »

Mon May 12, 2008 6:47 pm Agree: 8   Disagree: 0

It is a sweet and blessed book
But beware of that ancient crook
Crawling across this barren land
That he might pry it from your hand

It is a sweet and blessed book
But beware of that ancient crook
Who will hiss and say, “Yea hath God said?”
Placing deadly questions inside your head

It is a sweet and blessed book
But beware of that ancient crook
Who bites with deadly conditions
Adding vain, oral traditions

--Wilderness1

msnchris70 »

Mon May 12, 2008 6:28 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants

msnchris70 »

Mon May 12, 2008 6:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Polycarp of Smyrna



"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!" (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).

msnchris70 »

Mon May 12, 2008 6:27 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

Jerome
"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

Polycarp of Smyrna
"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!" (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).

msnchris70 »

Mon May 12, 2008 6:25 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 5

Augustine
"The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).

"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).

msnchris70 »

Mon May 12, 2008 6:23 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 5

Council of Rome
"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).


Council of Hippo
"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).


Council of Carthage III
"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

We have a consistent history of what was inspired in the OT.

msnchris70 »

Mon May 12, 2008 5:57 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 7

Quecat,
Is this Catholic theologian or you INFALLIBLE? A great deal of your points were actually brought up by the Liberal Relativist TV...The Discovery Channel.

The Catholic and Orthodox Church have always accepted the Greek Septuagint as canonical and inspired. The Pharisees later decided in the 1st Century what was canonical and what wasn't referring to the Old Testament. I'm sorry, but I'd rather stick with the Tradition passed down from the Apostles rather than the Pharisees any day!!!

Where did God give the Pharisees in Scripture infalliblity? Where did God give the Jews the power to bind and loose? Where did God give the Jews the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven?

You are no less a Relativist than Luther, who wanted to throw out seven books of the New Testament too!! Protestants simply do not make decisions like the Apostles did. You do not have ecumenical councils where all Protestants get together and decide doctrine and you don't follow the Scriptures on how faith and morals were settled.

The Bible has Authority because of the Apostolic Tradition of what the Apostles used. You will also notice that the Catholic Church rarely created doctrine or set a standard unless it was under attack. We Catholics had to formalize things only when attacked. These Deutero-Canonical books were always accepted and were in the first three editions of the King James Version.

You are at odds with the Tradition of the Apostles and what they handed down as Scripture. Jesus also used the Greek version, since Hebrew was rarely read or spoken in Nazareth.

msunkes »

Mon May 12, 2008 5:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

A link to this article has been posted on the website GoodNewsNow.com.

Quecat »

Mon May 12, 2008 4:43 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

" Even the Roman Catholic church made a distinction between the Apocrypha and the other books of the Bible prior to the Reformation. For example, Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Luther at Augsburg, in 1518 published A Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. His commentary, however, did not include the Apocrypha.

The first official council of the Roman Catholic church to ratify these books was at the Council of Trent in 1546, only twenty-nine years AFTER Luther posted his ninety-five theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg. The acceptance of these books at this time was convenient since the books were being quoted against Luther. For example, 2 Maccabees speaks of prayers for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46) and another book teaches salvation by works (Tob. 12:19).

The content of the Apocrypha is sub-biblical. Some of the stories are clearly fanciful. Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, and Judith have the earmarks of legend; the authors of these books even give hints along the way that the stories are not to be taken seriously.

What is more, these books have historical errors. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 B.C. and also when Jeroboam revolted against Judah in 931 B.C., which would make him at least 209 years old; yet according to the account, he died when he was only 158 years. The Book of Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon.

These inaccuracies are inconsistent with the doctrine of inspiration which teaches that when God inspires a book it is free from all errors."

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=685

msnchris70 »

Mon May 12, 2008 2:56 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 5

Funny how Jesus nor the Apostles ever used the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament, but instead used the Septuagint. The Apostles and Jesus read this Old Testament and never do we hear any of them say anthing against it to be not canonical.

Moreover, we do have in the New Testament Scripture verses that are either exactly or very close to Scripture verses in the Deutero-canonical books. If Jesus or the Apostles had to use quotes for it to be considered canonical, then we are going to have to throw out a lot more of the books of the Bible.

It was ORAL TRADITION that passed down what books were inspired and which were not. The Catholic Church made the decision with its power of the Holy Spirit with the gift of the KEYS to bind and loose what is inspired and what is not.

If it wasn't for the Catholic Church, the Bible wouldn't have been called a "Bible", the Scriptures would have never survived, and the correctly inspired Scriptures would have never have found their way into a collection of books which make up the New Testament today.

The Bible claims no authority to itself, but claims that all Scripture is useful and good for reproofing which it is. It is the Word of God and shall be obeyed and no docrine can go against the Word in Scripture or in the Word in Tradition. The Church is the Foudation of Truth, the Church has the Authority to bind and loose and to forgive and retain sins.

How can you accept the Authority of the New Testament, without accepting the Authority of the Catholic Church who produced it? It is illogical.

The Bible is complete and you may never add to it or subtract from it.....Did you hear that LUTHER!!!!

Quecat »

Mon May 12, 2008 2:37 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

The Apocryphal books were transmitted by various portions of the early church as being "useful" and containing some elements of history, but were regarded as spurious due to lack of pedigree and lacking the power and distinctive elements of the revealed Word of God. In any case, whereever they were included, the Apocrypha were delineated either in an appendix and/or with an explanation showing them to be non-canonical.

The Old Testament concludes with the book of Malachi, the last book to be written after the restoration from exile (5th century B.C.). And its final sentences prepare the people of God for a long wait, ("Remember the Law of Moses," 4:4); also a lamp of hope is given ("I will send you Elijah," v.5, who will speak authoritatively from God).
So God's people settled down, as it were, to wait for this promised Elijah, and no other. Indeed, even the Apocrypha admits that during the inter-testamental period (roughly four centuries between Malachi and the Baptist) no prophet was to be heard or seen. "Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them" (1 Macc.9:27).

Now the New Testament, when God once again spoke through men, it was exactly to fulfill Malachi's prophecy. For John the Baptist is said to be that Elijah (M11:14; 17:10); when questioned directly whether he was the literal Elijah, he denied it (Luke 1:17), but Christ confirmed it for us that John fulfils Malachi's prophecy. Thus the story, so to say, goes on uninterruptedly, even though four centuries had elapsed.

The link between the last book of the Old and the first book of the New Testament is as clear as daylight, and reinforces the integral unity between the two Testaments. Anything in between would appear strange and out of place.

The Apocrypha would fit in as a wedge, not only because they are not needed, but also because they are not prophetical, are not inspired, contain doctrinal errors and are never quoted by Christ or His apostles.

Tallguy1000 »

Mon May 12, 2008 1:39 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 5

The complete list of books of the bible was put together by the Catholic Church in the early years. Around the year 350a.d. the Synod Council of Rome determined which books should make up the bible. This was confirmed in 393a.d. by the Bishops in Africa through the Council of Hippo. It was confirmed a third time in around 397a.d. by the council of Carthage. Unfortunately Martin Luther removed 7 books from the original bible, and protestants have been robbed of some wonderful Old Testament scripture ever since.
In Christ <><…

Gratus »

Mon May 12, 2008 1:03 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

There was a famous preacher who preached a sermon. After church, one churchgoer said: What a preacher! The next Sunday Charles Spurgeon preached. After church, the churchgoer said: What a Christ!

This is my experience when I read Billy Graham's comments on the Bible. What a Christ!