Here we deal with questions about the points made in the Bible Authority page.
The true Christian believes that scripture is sufficient because IT CLAIMS TO BE SO as I have shown in the Bible Authority page. The following are some arguments in favor of "tradition" as an addition to scripture and my responses to them:-
1. "The Bible does not have penance, auricular confession, altar boys, liturgy, church hierarchy, Christmas, Lent, Easter, etc. This proves that it is not sufficient."
No. This proves that God does not want those things! But don't "Protestants" celebrate Christmas and have denominational hierarchies? Well, God wants you to obey his word, the Bible; He has not asked you to obey "Protestants". If you're thinking, "There are no cars in the Bible, but all Christians use cars!" then please see How to interpret the Bible especially Rule 7 and Examples 15 & 16.
2. "The Bible does not have the Trinity"
Yes it does. The Bible teaches that God is a Trinity.
3. "The Bible has never been understood completely. This proves that tradition is needed to supplement it."
The first statement is correct, but the conclusion drawn is false. The Bible can never be understood fully because its Author is infinite, while its readers are finite. Therefore, clergy or tradition will not solve this problem. Example: the Bible teaches God's sovereignty as well as human choice and responsibility. With our finite human minds, we will never be able to understand how the two of them fit together. The writings of the "church fathers" and clergy do not enable us to understand it fully because the "church fathers" and clergy are mere humans (as are Calvin and Arminius).
The hundreds of Old Testament quotations in the New Testament show that its writers had excellent knowledge of the Old Testament. The divine inspiration of the New Testament does not negate this conclusion, because Biblical inspiration does not mean mechanical dictation.
Jesus had an excellent knowledge of the scriptures when he was just 12 years. The deity of Jesus does not negate my point about the Bible being available, because Jesus never used his divine powers for his personal use. When his parents found him, he did not reply, "Didn't you know that I'm God so I have a chance to display my supernatural Bible knowledge to the teachers?" He said, "Didn't you know that I must be about my Father's business?" His Father's will was that he would learn as a human (Hebrews 2:11, 14); part of the learning process is discussion with others (not blind acceptance of the Magisterium's views)
Stephen's speech in Acts 7 proves that he had an excellent knowledge of the Bible.
Timothy learned the Old Testament as a child (2 Timothy 3:15)
Groups of ancient Christians used to make copies of the Bible and sell it to others.
The Bible can easily be handwritten in a year by writing about three chapters daily. Why should it be inaccessible? When man cannot live except by God's word (Deuteronomy 8:3) [and God's word is the Bible, not Latin liturgies] why would God make it so difficult to have a Bible?
It turns out that the non-availability of scripture was not a serious problem to deal with except when the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches used their might to keep the Bible away from people.
This is like asking a college student: "You've got textbooks that cover the full syllabus. Why do you attend lectures then?" This false dilemma arises from treating things from different categories as belonging to the same. When the Bible claims to be sufficient, it obviously means sufficient within its category. That is, the Bible does not have to be supplemented with other works claiming similar authority (the Book of Mormon, Papal Bulls, "church father" writings, etc.). It is sufficient in the sense of containing all we need for our spiritual growth.
Teaching is endorsed in the Bible itself (Ephesians 4:11, 2 Timothy 2:2). Philip explained scripture to the Ethiopian eunuch. Biblical sufficiency does not mean that teachers are redundant! Just as, when I tell a student that such and such physics textbook is sufficient (it covers the whole syllabus) I don't mean that I'm about to resign!
When Paul uses the words "tradition" and "ordinances" in these verses, he's only referring to his own teachings, that is, the teachings of the apostles. He is not referring to the writings of the Origens, Cyprians and Cyrils of the subsequent centuries!!
There were no voice recorders in Paul's day. So we have no record of what he spoke to the Corinthians and Thessalonians. But we have his epistles! So the only way you can obey these two verses is to obey the Bible.
So do I endorse tradition? Yes, if by "tradition" you mean the apostle's doctrine. I find this tradition in written form in the Bible. The oral form of the apostle's doctrine has not been preserved. There are dozens of "church fathers" who don't all agree with each other. I don't see any logical or scriptural basis for endorsing their "tradition".
Secondly, 2 Timothy 3:8 and Jude 14-15 are not "quotes", just statements of fact about the past. They do not endorse any other book as companion to the Bible. Why would Jude even quote from the fraudulent "book of Enoch"? He quoted something that Enoch (who lived 3000 years before him) had said, which the fabricators of the "book of Enoch" also included in their fake "work".
Because this is precisely what the New Testament epistles demand for themselves!
When a book demands a certain treatment, it is stupid and arrogant to pontificate about what you think may be the purpose of the book and then decide how to treat it. Rather, if you actually read the New Testament, you would find that its scope goes far beyond church problems. For example, in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, the scriptures don't just help the man of God solve church problems. In 1 Peter 2:2, Christians are asked to study God's word without any reference to church problems. In 1 Timothy 3:15, the NT epistles are said to be helpful for right conduct in the church, without any reference to any specific problems.
We believe that the Bible was meant to be a complete authority on doctrine because that is what it claims about itself, not because it looks like how we expect a final doctrinal authority to look like. Plausibility or fitting into your preconceived notions is not an adequate test for truth. We can be sure that the Bible that God has given us is the best possible. He knows us, and thus knows what's best for us.
No it doesn't because the Bible itself clarifies how it is to be interpreted.
In fact it is the Catholic/Orthodox policy of glossing over the Bible that leads to ambiguity. For centuries, the RCC and the Orthodox Church have been saying that the Bible does not really mean what it says about salvation, Israel, church, baptism, the return of Jesus Christ to the earth, etc. In modern times, atheistic scientists have claimed that Genesis 1 is wrong. So Catholic and Orthodox apologists have a dilemma: some of them (Father Victor Warkulwiz, for example) take Genesis 1 "literally" and insist that the secular scientists are wrong. Others (Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, for example) interpret it in a highly figurative way so that they can make it mean something completely different from what it says (the latter complain that the former are more akin to "Protestant fundamentalists"). The Biblical Christian has no dilemma. Genesis 1 is written as narrative, and so has to be interpreted as narrative: literally. The scoffers are wrong.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Note the following:-
Firstly, The Bible claims to have divine authority - above that possessed by any human body. Thus, if anyone has "given" the Bible, it is God.
I wouldn't bother to write all I wrote if it applied only to the originals (the autographs) because they do not exist! But the Bible is well preserved, so Biblical authority applies also to the Hebrew and Greek texts extant today. In fact, even during New Testament times, God's people used copies of the Old Testament and referred to them as scripture (see Luke 4:21 for example).
Does Biblical authority apply to translations of the Bible? Yes, because:-