The Bible Alone is Not Enough

[quietlight]

Sola Scriptura is not about the canon it is about authority. Sola Scriptura says that our highest authority in all matters of faith and practice is scripture, if a tradition contradicts scripture then scripture is correct. We have nothing against tradition by the way, we have our own but it must not contradict or weaken scriptural doctrine.

Interesting - I had honestly not heard it referred to this way before. Allow me a few more questions...

- You say that scripture is the highest form of authority, but agree that there can be authority outside of scripture - is that correct? If that is your point, I don't see how that is "sola" scriptura.
- Based off of what you are saying, then there had to be a group with the authority to define which books would belong to the Bible - correct?
- How far does this authority go? For example, I'm curious as to where you would get the doctrine of the Trinity as most Christians believe. Sure, all three persons of the Trinity are mentioned, but we never get the explicit teaching of the Trinity.

I'm pretty encouraged by this so far - I do think there is room for more understanding and possibly even agreement.

 

[quietlight]

Jus what was inspired by God.

And is that full and complete?

For the record, the Church teaches that all new revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, so I do believe the original apostles were given full and complete revelation for Christianity. It is from this revelation that the bible, and specifically books of the NT, were written.

 

[Scuba Pete]

then there had to be a group with the authority to define which books would belong to the Bible - correct?

God can do anything. He could have had the Taliban give us the scriptures if he wanted to. The real beauty of the Scriptures is that there is NO PART that is written by any member of a denomination. They called themselves Christians if anything.

 

[quietlight]

God can do anything. He could have had the Taliban give us the scriptures if he wanted to. The real beauty of the Scriptures is that there is NO PART that is written by any member of a denomination. They called themselves Christians if anything.

Yes, God can do anything, but what I am trying to get down to is where the Bible came from in its current form. It didn't just magically appear. At some point some group decided that there were only 4 legitimate Gospels, that only certain books would make up the OT and the NT. It is this group's decision that we all accept.

So why do you accept the bible in its current form? On what authority do you have it that every book in the Bible is inspired and written by God?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Yes, God can do anything, but what I am trying to get down to is where the Bible came from in its current form.

Where DO miracles come from? The disciple, the prophet or God?

You seem to want to compartmentalise God. If the Spirit is moving among us, he can cause ANY group to pull the scriptures together.

I Peter 3:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 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. NIV

While it is not specifically discussed, I am sure that men were carried along by the Holy Spirit as they determined what should be included. But how do we KNOW when something is of the Spirit?

I Thessalonians 5:16 Be joyful always; 17 pray continually; 18 give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus. 19 Do not put out the Spirit's fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22 Avoid every kind of evil. NIV

 

[*Paul*]

Interesting - I had honestly not heard it referred to this way before. Allow me a few more questions...

- You say that scripture is the highest form of authority, but agree that there can be authority outside of scripture - is that correct?

Not in regards to church practice or doctrine or individualy even. Tradition has it's place but it does not have authority over the members of the Church, lets say it is my churches tradition that all the men sit on the left hand side of the building, they have always done but I come along and decide to sit on right hand side, i may upset a few people but they no right at all to try to enforce it upon me as a Christian or to disfellowship me because of it because there is no scriptural basis for the tradition.

If that is your point, I don't see how that is "sola" scriptura.
- Based off of what you are saying, then there had to be a group with the authority to define which books would belong to the Bible - correct?

No I don't believe that, neither have I said that. It is the voice of my Shepherd and I hear His voice all through it.

- How far does this authority go? For example, I'm curious as to where you would get the doctrine of the Trinity as most Christians believe. Sure, all three persons of the Trinity are mentioned, but we never get the explicit teaching of the Trinity.

I understand it soley from the bible there is nothing you can tell me about the trinity that is not in the bible, i believe it because the bible teaches it and do not go beyond what is written therin concerning God.

I'm pretty encouraged by this so far - I do think there is room for more understanding and possibly even agreement.

It's always good to be optimistic.

 

[quietlight]

Where DO miracles come from? The disciple, the prophet or God?

You seem to want to compartmentalise God. If the Spirit is moving among us, he can cause ANY group to pull the scriptures together.

I am not saying that the Spirit did not inspire those men to choose the books that make up the Bible. In fact, I would say quite the contrary - I believe wholeheartedly that God worked through those men to give us the Bible.

What I am wondering is whether or not sola scriptura believers recognize that as well.

And as a secondary question, I would like to know how people think that Christianity was spread before God inspired the Bishops at the council of Hippo.

I'm also still wondering about our understanding of the Trinity as well - is this something that is solely scriptural based or did we come to know of this belief from outside of the Bible?

 

[quietlight]

Not in regards to church practice or doctrine or individualy even. Tradition has it's place but it does not have authority over the members of the Church, lets say it is my churches tradition that all the men sit on the left hand side of the building, they have always done but I come along and decide to sit on right hand side, i may upset a few people but they no right at all to try to enforce it upon me as a Christian or to disfellowship me because of it because there is no scriptural basis for the tradition.

I wouldn't disagree with you there in the slightest. Tradition in the sense that Catholics believe is not wrapped up in these accidental details.

No I don't believe that, neither have I said that. It is the voice of my Shepherd and I hear His voice all through it.

Wait, so you simply agree with the books that come in the Bible through divine inspiration? Do you recognize at all the fact that the Bible had to come into form at some point - and it came into form at the hands of men (whom I believe to be divinely inspired).

I understand it soley from the bible there is nothing you can tell me about the trinity that is not in the bible, i believe it because the bible teaches it and do not go beyond what is written therin concerning God.

Really? Where does the Bible teach us that there is a Trinity? That the Father begot the Son (not made)? That the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three persons yet one God? I would be very, very fascinated to see where this is taught in the Bible.

 

[*Paul*]

Wait, so you simply agree with the books that come in the Bible through divine inspiration?

I'm honestly not sure what you are asking me here.

Do you recognize at all the fact that the Bible had to come into form at some point - and it came into form at the hands of men (whom I believe to be divinely inspired).

From the brerath of God to being written on paper yes it came into form at the hands of men as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Really? Where does the Bible teach us that there is a Trinity? That the Father begot the Son (not made)? That the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three persons yet one God? I would be very, very fascinated to see where this is taught in the Bible.

If it wasn't in the bible I wouldn't believe it, searching the scriptures is what convinced me of it. This will answer some of your questions and
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46823 &
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44340&page=9 (#88)

 

[Scuba Pete]

I am not saying that the Spirit did not inspire those men to choose the books that make up the Bible. In fact, I would say quite the contrary - I believe wholeheartedly that God worked through those men to give us the Bible.

What I am wondering is whether or not sola scriptura believers recognize that as well.

They count on it. But then again, most who would "condemn" us to believe in sola scriptura miss the real point: we believe the Spirit still works in the life of the believer and we don't need a seperate priestly class to interpret the words for us.

And as a secondary question, I would like to know how people think that Christianity was spread before God inspired the Bishops at the council of Hippo.

Dude, they didn't WRITE a single word of these scriptures. They were around before this council and they continued after it disappeared. You give them way too much credit.

I'm also still wondering about our understanding of the Trinity as well - is this something that is solely scriptural based or did we come to know of this belief from outside of the Bible?

You would have to ask someone who believes in this man made doctrine. The scriptures do fine without referring to the "Trinity", and I will follow suit.

The biggest problem with MOST modern denominations? Outright legalism. They look at the scriptures, their prayer books, their clergy as a substitute for the LAW. It was for freedom Christ has set me free... I don't need a bunch of man made rules to encumber me. The Spirit is my counselor.

 

[quietlight]

OK...I think I am starting to understand a little more of where at least Paul and NetDoc are coming from...bear with me for a few more questions...

Paul, I am assuming you would reject a gospel of Jesus that is not included in the Bible as we know it today (ex. the Gospel of Thomas). If I am wrong on this assumption, please let me know. If I am correct, can you please let me know why you would reject this Gospel?

Regarding the scripture evidence you provided for the Trinity, I still don't see God described as the Trinity. I see scripture evidence to support the Trinity, but nothing from which you could draw the conclusion from the text alone.

From the brerath of God to being written on paper yes it came into form at the hands of men as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Absolutely. I agree 100%. And it was the Holy Spirit who moved through the councils that rejected some of the false books and accepted the true books of the Bible. Would you agree with that?



NetDoc,

But then again, most who would "condemn" us to believe in sola scriptura miss the real point: we believe the Spirit still works in the life of the believer and we don't need a seperate priestly class to interpret the words for us.

I don't believe scripture would support your position here. The gospels and NT have several references to commanding the apostles to go out and teach.

I would urge you to be careful of condemning those who do not believe in SS of not believing the Spirit works in the hearts of believers. The significant difference is that we believe that the scriptures came forth from a deposit of faith given to the apostles (which makes more sense chronologically IMO). These apostles taught the scriptures, and wrote them down as well. Not all things that were taught were written explicitly in the scriptures - and this is where Tradition comes into our understanding.

Dude, they didn't WRITE a single word of these scriptures. They were around before this council and they continued after it disappeared. You give them way too much credit.

No they did not, but they did reject some books that were, at the time, popular in circulation. And they did accept some books which to many would not seem inspired.

Let me ask you this: why is it that you haven't read the Gospel of Thomas? What lead you to accept the books that are included in your Bible? You may say it came through Divine inspiration to you, but have you ever decided which books you believed to be inspired and which ones were not?

My point being, by using the Bible that we have today, you are recognizing that God worked through these councils to give us the Bible as we have it today. The Bible alone does not tell us what books belong in the Good Book.

The biggest problem with MOST modern denominations? Outright legalism. They look at the scriptures, their prayer books, their clergy as a substitute for the LAW. It was for freedom Christ has set me free... I don't need a bunch of man made rules to encumber me. The Spirit is my counselor.

I would disagree that we look to these things a substitute - rather the Church is here as a guide to help teach us the faith which was given to us by Christ. You continually refer to 'man-made' law and rules, but do you recognize that it may be possible that the Spirit has actually worked through these men to guide people closer to Christ?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I don't believe scripture would support your position here. The gospels and NT have several references to commanding the apostles to go out and teach.

To teach what? The Gospel. Has the Gospel changed? No, of course it hasn't, and those who want to change it are in for trouble.

Galations 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! 10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. NIV

I would urge you to be careful of condemning those who do not believe in SS of not believing the Spirit works in the hearts of believers.

My friend, the point is... you are accusing ME of ascribing to "Sola Scriptura", which I reject outright. The Spirit plays a huge part in what I believe and more importantly how I am transformed.

Let me ask you this: why is it that you haven't read the Gospel of Thomas?

Rather than continually accusing people, why don't you ask? Of course I have read it. You can also read it here: The Gospel of St Thomas

What lead you to accept the books that are included in your Bible? You may say it came through Divine inspiration to you, but have you ever decided which books you believed to be inspired and which ones were not?

First, you have no idea how I approach the scriptures. I see them as a blog about man trying to find God. While there are times the authors seem to "get it", there are many more times where it is obvious that they have missed the boat. I do not deify the scriptures, I do not believe them to be inerrant. I DO believe that God works through them, just as he works through all imperfect things.

I would disagree that we look to these things a substitute - rather the Church is here as a guide to help teach us the faith which was given to us by Christ. You continually refer to 'man-made' law and rules, but do you recognize that it may be possible that the Spirit has actually worked through these men to guide people closer to Christ?

Guide? That's the Spirit's job.

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you. NIV

So as you use your priests to "Guide" you, you are indeed looking to them as a substitute. Why are you not a priest? I am.

 

[quietlight]

To teach what? The Gospel. Has the Gospel changed? No, of course it hasn't, and those who want to change it are in for trouble.

Absolutely, to teach the Gospel - and no, it has not changed. But the Gospel's tell us to go out and teach the Gospel's, not just hand the Bible to someone and let the Spirit guide them. Christ taught his apostles, and they in turn taught thousands of people, who in turn taught thousands of others. Have you been taught anything through other people?

I am not for advocating teaching something other than the truth...

My friend, the point is... you are accusing ME of ascribing to "Sola Scriptura", which I reject outright. The Spirit plays a huge part in what I believe and more importantly how I am transformed.

My apologies - I thought that you did ascribe to Sola Scriptura based on your comments. I did not mean to imply that you believe something which you do not believe.

Rather than continually accusing people, why don't you ask? Of course I have read it. You can also read it here:

I was asking - and thank you for answering. Do you believe that the Gospel of St. Thomas is a book written by God?

First, you have no idea how I approach the scriptures. I see them as a blog about man trying to find God. While there are times the authors seem to "get it", there are many more times where it is obvious that they have missed the boat. I do not deify the scriptures, I do not believe them to be inerrant. I DO believe that God works through them, just as he works through all imperfect things.

Guide? That's the Spirit's job.

So what role did the apostles have in the spread of Christianity (if any)?

So as you use your priests to "Guide" you, you are indeed looking to them as a substitute. Why are you not a priest? I am.

They are not a substitute if they are preaching the word of Christ. Doesn't the Bible talk about the apostle's laying their hands on people and bringing them into the faith? Was it not the apostles who were used by God to convert thousands upon thousands of people?

I am worried that I do not understand fully where you are coming from, but I am anxious to hear more.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Absolutely, to teach the Gospel - and no, it has not changed. But the Gospel's tell us to go out and teach the Gospel's, not just hand the Bible to someone and let the Spirit guide them. Christ taught his apostles, and they in turn taught thousands of people, who in turn taught thousands of others. Have you been taught anything through other people?

What DID Jesus teach us to do? Love!

John 13:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." NIV

My apologies - I thought that you did ascribe to Sola Scriptura based on your comments. I did not mean to imply that you believe something which you do not believe.

MOST of the people you ascribe to believing in Sola Scriptura DON'T. It's how we are labeled by the Catholic Church. They just don't understand that we refuse to let some "priest" take the roll of the Spirit and of our brothers. ALL Christians are priests of the order of Melchizedek. Jesus is our High Priest!

I Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. NIV

Romans 8:1 The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. NIV

I was asking - and thank you for answering. Do you believe that the Gospel of St. Thomas is a book written by God?

I don't believe God wrote ANY of the books. They were all written by men. However, God can work through all of these books to teach and to convict our hearts.

So what role did the apostles have in the spread of Christianity (if any)?

They were the first evangelists and the last apostles.

They are not a substitute if they are preaching the word of Christ. Doesn't the Bible talk about the apostle's laying their hands on people and bringing them into the faith? Was it not the apostles who were used by God to convert thousands upon thousands of people?

Not according to Paul...

I Corinthians 3:5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. NIV

I am worried that I do not understand fully where you are coming from, but I am anxious to hear more.

Don't try to understand me, my friend. Learn to let the Spirit guide you into the truth.

 

[James the Persian]

What version of the Bible do you use?

There is no decent English language version of our canon available, so I mainly use my Romanian Bible. In English I use the NKJV with 'Apocrypha' (as they call the Deuterocanon) but whilst that contains all the books of the Latin canon, it still doesn't have all of the ones in the original Greek canon. It's also not necessarilt completely based on the Byzantine text of the New Testament.

And what parts of your Bible are contradictory to the standard Bible (that's the king james version, folks )?

None. I didn't say they contradict yours, just that yours is reduced in size. As a result the 'sola scriptura' Reformers through out Scriptural support for certain doctrines they didn't like - putting their claim to faith based on Scripture alone to the lie. (The Maccabees give support to prayers for the dead, for instance).

For me, yes. Because I have faith that everything God wants in the Bible would be in there.

Fair enough, your overly black and white view is hardly unusual amongst Protestants, but fails to take into account what the word canon actually means, but which Bible? Your Protestant reduced one based on an OT produced by post-Christian Jews, the longer Latin canon with most of the OT as used by pre-Christian Jews in Alexandria and the rest of the diaspora, our even longer one containing all of that canon, or perhaps the Ethiopian canon, which is longer still and contains some of the New Testament candidates the rest of us left out, as well as Enoch in the OT? There is no one canon, and there never was (historically, there were even more, all used within the same undivided Church and all considered valid), so why should God favour yours?

James

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

None. I didn't say they contradict yours, just that yours is reduced in size. As a result the 'sola scriptura' Reformers through out Scriptural support for certain doctrines they didn't like - putting their claim to faith based on Scripture alone to the lie. (The Maccabees give support to prayers for the dead, for instance).

This is starting to sound like the Catholics are including the books that they like, like a book that would support prayer for the dead. Do those extra books talk about Puragtory, too? I wouldn't know, since I've never read them.

Fair enough, your overly black and white view is hardly unusual amongst Protestants, but fails to take into account what the word canon actually means, but which Bible?

Some might call it an overly black and white view. Others might call it faith in God and His plan. Whatever, both work for me, I'll go with the flow.

Your Protestant reduced one based on an OT produced by post-Christian Jews, the longer Latin canon with most of the OT as used by pre-Christian Jews in Alexandria and the rest of the diaspora, our even longer one containing all of that canon, or perhaps the Ethiopian canon, which is longer still and contains some of the New Testament candidates the rest of us left out, as well as Enoch in the OT? There is no one canon, and there never was (historically, there were even more, all used within the same undivided Church and all considered valid), so why should God favour yours?

I'm stumped, I don't know.

 

[James the Persian]

Yes, God can do anything, but what I am trying to get down to is where the Bible came from in its current form. It didn't just magically appear. At some point some group decided that there were only 4 legitimate Gospels, that only certain books would make up the OT and the NT. It is this group's decision that we all accept.

Actually, that point never happened at all and there isn't a canon that we all accept, and there never was. I'm aware of 4 canons currently in use in the world and a fifth one that was historically used but later replaced by ours: Protestant, Latin, Greek, Ethiopian, Syriac. They (apart from the Protestant one) were all used at the same time in the Undivided Church prior to Chalcedon. Of course, this is not a problem for those of us who understand what a canon is and what it is for. Protestants, unfortunately, appear to take the words uncanonical and uninspired to be synonyms when they are far from that.

So why do you accept the bible in its current form? On what authority do you have it that every book in the Bible is inspired and written by God?

I accept mine because of Holy Tradition as passed down in the Orthodox Church, you do the same with respect to the RCC. The Protestants accept their Bible according to their tradition also (though it is one which is a mere 500 years old), though they probably prefer to call it something else. Tradition's a dirty word, you know.

James

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

Well, I'll check back in tomorrow if possible. *yawn* I'm turning in.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Of course, there are many of us "non-protestants" here. Gosh I hate to be labeled!

 

[James the Persian]

This is starting to sound like the Catholics are including the books that they like, like a book that would support prayer for the dead. Do those extra books talk about Puragtory, too? I wouldn't know, since I've never read them.

Firstly, if by Catholic you mean Roman Catholic, then you should be aware that I am not one. I'm Orthodox. We'd been out of communion with Rome for 500 years by the time your Reformation occurred. How can it look like they are including books that they like? Those books are in the Septuagint, which was a translation of the Scriptures into Greek made by Jews in Alexandria and completed 100 years before the Incarnation of Christ. It is also that version of the OT that is overwhelmingly the one quoted in the NT and it is that version that was always the OT of the Church - not until 1500 years later did that change when the Reformers chose the Masoretic text instead. You also clearly know little of the three communions that do not follow your reduced canon and that long pre-date your churches if you ask me about purgatory. That is a peculiarly Roman doctrine which is and always has been rejected by both we and the Oriental Orthodox, so clearly neither of us see it reflected in Scripture. Prayer for the dead, on the other hand, is a common practice of all pre-Reformation Christians and attested to in the very earliest historical and archaeological evidence - and it does not require a belief in purgatory.

Some might call it an overly black and white view. Others might call it faith in God and His plan. Whatever, both work for me, I'll go with the flow.

No. It's certainly an overly black and white view. The purpose of the canon never was to gather all the inspired writings together and to throw out the rest - the Church never saw it that way at all. You could stand to look up the meaning of the word canon. Then you might understand what its purpose actually is.

I'm stumped, I don't know.

Then you seem to have a problem adhering to sola scriptura. It's rathr difficult to adhere to Scripture alone if you aren't even sure what is and is not Scripture.

James