Christians Only: How should we view the Scriptures?

[justfoolingaround]

In main Christian denominations, there are two ways to view the Bible: Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura.
Basically, Sola Scriptura is Protestant and Prima Scriptura is Catholic and Orthodox.

Personally, I believe in Prima Scriptura. It means that Bible is the first resourse that we benefit from and second one is the Tradition. When I have a question about something, I look up in the Bible. If I can't find anything about it(literally ANYTHING even a tiny word), then I go for Tradition. Bible is not "Book of Everything". God inspired it to us to get us saved, not to get our every single question answered.
P.S. Tradition can be sometimes really harsh so I don't seek advice in it on the first hand. Luckily, Bible is full of wisdom and there is nearly an answer for every single question of mine.

 

[Sleeppy]

Some truth. Some fabrication. Some use. Some misuse.

 

[sojourner]

I didn't like any of your choices, so I didn't vote. To me, the texts are a collection of the written Tradition of God's people in the Judaic and Christian faiths. They are inspired, fallible works of history, myth, story, poetry, law, and correspondence. They contain deep spiritual truth.

 

[Unification]

Question is in the thread title.

I've gone through some phases of trying to take the Scriptures more liberally, only to find myself in a subjective quagmire where my own feelings trump what is actually in the text.

Fed up with the subjective and somewhat meaningless (to me) method of interpreting Scripture, I resorted to using Tradition to also inform my views of Scripture.

To cut a long story short, I concluded Tradition was not awfully reliable, seeing as the source of much tradition, the church fathers, were not infallible bastions of truth themselves, and I became wary of the "Chinese whispers" effect of passing teachings down through the generations, where additions and embellishments could have been made.

My own view these days is now sola scriptura; Scripture alone. I'm basically back where I started, not sure if that's a good or bad thing. It's solved my subjective quagmire problems at least. I concluded it is better to just submit to God's word rather than try and fit Him into my little box of what I feel is right and wrong. And when I say sola scriptura, that doesn't mean the Bible is the only source of truth, but it is the only infallible source of truth. Other sources, like Tradition, can indeed be useful but I see the Scriptures as the only real reliable source.

Anyway, I'm interested to see what my fellow Christians' views are on this, and how we should approach and interpret the Scriptures, and how we should view them in relation to God's revelation and the truth.

That they shouldn't be taken literally, historically, or physically. They all are happening within the brain, mind, and body.

 

[Izdaari]

I voted *Inspired by God, fallible yet highly truthful"

Inspired does not mean dictated. God let His kids tell the story, in their own words, with their own idioms and cultural referents. It's a faithful record of their relationship with God, but it isn't necessarily historically or scientifically accurate. It contains a lot of poetry, visions, mythology (but see George MacDonald, C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien on True Myths), allegory and parables. Many of the translations are highly uncertain. And yet it is all sufficient for God's purpose.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Question is in the thread title.

I've gone through some phases of trying to take the Scriptures more liberally, only to find myself in a subjective quagmire where my own feelings trump what is actually in the text.

Fed up with the subjective and somewhat meaningless (to me) method of interpreting Scripture, I resorted to using Tradition to also inform my views of Scripture.

To cut a long story short, I concluded Tradition was not awfully reliable, seeing as the source of much tradition, the church fathers, were not infallible bastions of truth themselves, and I became wary of the "Chinese whispers" effect of passing teachings down through the generations, where additions and embellishments could have been made.

My own view these days is now sola scriptura; Scripture alone. I'm basically back where I started, not sure if that's a good or bad thing. It's solved my subjective quagmire problems at least. I concluded it is better to just submit to God's word rather than try and fit Him into my little box of what I feel is right and wrong. And when I say sola scriptura, that doesn't mean the Bible is the only source of truth, but it is the only infallible source of truth. Other sources, like Tradition, can indeed be useful but I see the Scriptures as the only real reliable source.

Anyway, I'm interested to see what my fellow Christians' views are on this, and how we should approach and interpret the Scriptures, and how we should view them in relation to God's revelation and the truth.

My thoughts are countless people died to put the Bible in our hands and affirm sola scriptura. They didn't die in vain.

 

[kepha31]

I voted "Inspired by God, infallible and to be used in conjunction with other sources (i.e. Tradition)" as most correct, but even that one leaves much to be desired. The Church did not come from the Scriptures, the Scriptures are the Written Tradition which is a sub-set of Oral Tradition which came first, together with the Church that glues them together. The three are inseparable.
2 Timothy 3
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned (TRADITION) and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it (MAGISTERIUM) 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings (SCRIPTURE) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Now let's string these together so that we get the complete idea that St. Paul was trying to get across:

Continue in what you have learned, knowing from whom you learned it and you have been acquainted with the sacred writings that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Or to paraphrase even further:

Continue in the Traditions which you learned from Magisterial authority and study the Bible so that you may be fully equipped for every good work.

Interestingly enough in Catholic Tradition the four uses of Scripture corresponded to the Quadriga, the four-fold method of exegesis for the Bible:

Literal (teaching),
Analogical (reproof),
Prophetic (correction), and
Moral (training in righteousness).

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The church fathers, and the writers of the scriptures, and those that compiled the Bible were all men.
They were very like us, they had opinions, they had prejudices, they had baggage from their past they were all sinners.
They lacked everything that could be seen as Modern or Scientific knowledge. About the world, nature and the universe.
Like us they did their best with the information that they had.
They found it very difficult to go against tradition or the mores or the beliefs of the society in which they lived.
They were no better and probably no worse than us, at thinking about, passing on, or coming to conclusions about Got or Jesus.

The words of Jesus were becoming dim in peoples memory, the stories about him were filtered though many mouths.
Large chunks of his life and work were not remembered at all.

Never-the -less, some of Jesus words and Ideas and parables have come down to us, and give us at least a flavour of how he thought about God, and how we should live our lives.
Neither these words nor those found in the Old Testament give us a clear idea about the nature and purpose of God. Nor in fact do they even attempt to do so.
How ever, they do suggest that God loves us all, that he has a purpose for us individually, and that he regarded Jesus as his Son.

What we believe over and above that is certainly unprovable, and is probably a mixture of error and truth.
There is no test that we can apply to any scripture that will guarantee its truth. However it is all we have to look back on, and it contains many proven moral truths.
What it is not, is an accurate history, nor is it an accurate record of anyones words. At best it is a collection of remembrances.

 

[Desert Snake]

I voted ''irrelevant to my Christian faith''. The NT. Ultimately, my beliefs are outside the Scripture...the scripture is great, but they aren't a guidebook to my religious beliefs. The OT is a tad different, that is more like a guidebook, or what have you; but even then, I am not a strict literalist when it comes to Scripture.

 

[kepha31]

The church fathers, and the writers of the scriptures, and those that compiled the Bible were all men.
They were very like us, they had opinions, they had prejudices, they had baggage from their past they were all sinners.
They lacked everything that could be seen as Modern or Scientific knowledge. About the world, nature and the universe.
Like us they did their best with the information that they had.
They found it very difficult to go against tradition or the mores or the beliefs of the society in which they lived.
They were no better and probably no worse than us, at thinking about, passing on, or coming to conclusions about Got or Jesus.

They had close proximity of language and culture shared with the Apostles, an advantage we lack. But given the circumstances, the rise of the Church is a greater miracle than the Resurrection Itself. Either the Church Jesus founded is an extension of the Incarnation (united by the Eucharist), or she is a mere human institution. It's both/and, not this/or.

The words of Jesus were becoming dim in peoples memory, the stories about him were filtered though many mouths.
Large chunks of his life and work were not remembered at all.

It's unlikely anyone would forget what blew their minds. I agree that what they remembered was collectively assembled into the Written Tradition, but without a Divine Stamp there wouldn't be anything unique about it. Besides, Jesus did not found a book society, and gave no directive to write (except for one book by John).

Never-the -less, some of Jesus words and Ideas and parables have come down to us, and give us at least a flavour of how he thought about God, and how we should live our lives.
Neither these words nor those found in the Old Testament give us a clear idea about the nature and purpose of God. Nor in fact do they even attempt to do so.
How ever, they do suggest that God loves us all, that he has a purpose for us individually, and that he regarded Jesus as his Son.

Amen.

What we believe over and above that is certainly unprovable, and is probably a mixture of error and truth.
There is no test that we can apply to any scripture that will guarantee its truth. However it is all we have to look back on, and it contains many proven moral truths.

Indeed, but scripture had to be proven to be inspired, not just assumed. How? By testing it against Apostolic or OralTeaching. That same authoritive teaching did not expire when John wrote the last word in Revelation. Both come from the same divine well-spring, and one is not inferior to the other. If Oral Tradition has no divine protection from error, then neither does the Written Tradition.

What it is not, is an accurate history, nor is it an accurate record of anyones words. At best it is a collection of remembrances.

I am always forgetting where I put my keys. But many of the events and the effects found in the Gospels are perpetual, such as miracles, forgiveness of sins, inculturation of morals into whole societies, inner transformation and freedom etc. If reduced to a "collection of remembrances" then Christianity is a dead religion, which is what Modernists are trying to accomplish.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

They had close proximity of language and culture shared with the Apostles, an advantage we lack. But given the circumstances, the rise of the Church is a greater miracle than the Resurrection Itself. Either the Church Jesus founded is an extension of the Incarnation (united by the Eucharist), or she is a mere human institution. It's both/and, not this/or .

The first Judaeo-Christian church practices are well described in the Didache. Their faith was based on the eschatological belief of the end of times and the imminent arrival of the Kingdom.
The Apostles were not mentioned at all,and they had no Scripture except Old Testament texts. In some communities some of them may have heard a disciple or even Jesus speak but it would have been a rare and no doubt extremely important to that person.
The Eucharist was not celebrated as the Blood and flesh of Jesus but as the coming together of the scattered grain in the making of Bread, as the people are gathered into the church.

It's unlikely anyone would forget what blew their minds. I agree that what they remembered was collectively assembled into the Written Tradition, but without a Divine Stamp there wouldn't be anything unique about it. Besides, Jesus did not found a book society, and gave no directive to write (except for one book by John).

Not even sure about John, as the authors of none of the Gospels are actually known for sure.
The only stamp on the Books was the authority of the church fathers through the power of the emperor.
Even today there is no single Canon of authorised books, as the Roman, Orthodox. Coptic and Ethiopian and protestant canons differ

Amen.
Indeed, but scripture had to be proven to be inspired, not just assumed. How? By testing it against Apostolic or OralTeaching. That same authoritive teaching did not expire when John wrote the last word in Revelation. Both come from the same divine well-spring, and one is not inferior to the other. If Oral Tradition has no divine protection from error, then neither does the Written Tradition.

Divine inspiration has never ceased, Divine Authorship never existed. Both Oral tradition and writing has always been filtered by the thoughts and desires of man, neither has ever continued without the authority of a consensus.
It is equally possible that writings and ideas promulgated today may contain as much truth and Divine inspiration as those first writings.

I am always forgetting where I put my keys. But many of the events and the effects found in the Gospels are perpetual, such as miracles, forgiveness of sins, inculturation of morals into whole societies, inner transformation and freedom etc. If reduced to a "collection of remembrances" then Christianity is a dead religion, which is what Modernists are trying to accomplish.

Do not belittle "Remembrances" they were the inspiration that formed the core of the Christian faith.
It may be that because we rely too much on tradition and established practice, that is causing the withering of many churches.
In the past the Church has grown fastest at times when it accepted new thoughts and new inspirations.

 

[Johnlove]

Jesus told me the Christian Bible is God’s written Word.


I have discovered over the last forty years that to understand the written Word one needs to allow God to teach him or her.


Jesus has used the bible to help teach me, and he has never taught me anything that disagrees with the bible.


As to trying to understand everything in the written Word, I don’t even try. Jesus teaches me what is for me to know.


Jesus once told me to stop trying to figure him out, to just follow him.


God has the power to make the world look millions of years old, and it could be just as people believe the bible says it is not very old at all.



No one knows how or why God does what he does.

 

[Katzpur]

God has the power to make the world look millions of years old, and it could be just as people believe the bible says it is not very old at all.

Hmmm. I wonder what God's motives would be in trying to confuse us by making it look one way when it was really the other.

 

[Johnlove]

Hmmm. I wonder what God's motives would be in trying to confuse us by making it look one way when it was really the other.

(Matthew 13:13)”The reason I talk to them in parables is that they look without seeing and listen without hearing or understanding,”

 

[Katzpur]

(Matthew 13:13)”The reason I talk to them in parables is that they look without seeing and listen without hearing or understanding,”

So it sounds like you're saying that the account we have of the creation of the world in Genesis is just a parable. Is that right?

 

[Johnlove]

So it sounds like you're saying that the account we have of the creation of the world in Genesis is just a parable. Is that right?

Yes!

 

[Katzpur]

Yes!

Okay. If it is a parable, what do you interpret it as meaning?

 

[Johnlove]

Okay. If it is a parable, what do you interpret it as meaning?

I don’t interpret its meaning. Jesus has not told me, and it is in no way important to me.

 

[OneInChrist]

I do believe that the Bible is infallible, inspired, and without error.

However, I do not think we should take a strictly literal or fundamentalist approach to it.

We should read each verse and passage in a grammatic historical sense. We should be literal where certain passages are literal and symbolic where passages are symbolic.

 

[Johnlove]

I do believe that the Bible is infallible, inspired, and without error.

However, I do not think we should take a strictly literal or fundamentalist approach to it.

We should read each verse and passage in a grammatic historical sense. We should be literal where certain passages are literal and symbolic where passages are symbolic.

What a Spiritual Christian has is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will give one the true understanding of God’s Written Word.


(1 John 2: 27) “But you have not lost the anointing that he gave you, and you do not need anyone to teach you; the anointing he gave teaches you everything: you are anointed with truth, not with a lie, and as it has taught you, so you must stay in him.”