The Bible Alone is Not Enough

[James the Persian]

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

Oh, quit trying to find offence in everything and playing the martyr. I didn't see anyone here call you a Protestant so you simply haven't been labeled. You can call yourself whatever you like. You clearly adhere to certain protestant traditions with regards to Scripture, however, so fotr the sake of every post I've made on the subject you do fall in with the Protestants, even if you call yourself something else.

James

 

[Scuba Pete]

There is a remarkable difference between my beliefs and any protestant church. Why do you feel a need to pigeon hole me, even when you KNOW that I do not feel comfortable with that label? You are probably closer to the protestants than I am.

 

[*Paul*]

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?

I have read the gospel of thomas and it contradicts scripture: (Red = gospel of thomas)
Mt 16v24: Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
VS
Do not do what you dislike,


Nonsensical statements
Blessed is the lion
Eaten by a man, so that
it becomes a man.
Profane is the man
eaten by a lion
so that he becomes a lion.

14.)
Jesus said:
If you fast,
you will create sins for yourselves.
If you pray you will be condemned.
If you give alms, you will injure yourselves.
If you go into a land and wander throughout its area,
and are offered hospitality,
Eat what is set before you.
Heal the sick among them.
It is not what goes into your mouth that defiles you
But what comes out of your mouth that defiles you.

30.)
Where there are three Gods,
They are Gods.
Where there are two,or one,
I am with Him.

This always cracks me up:
114.)
Simon Peter suggested to them:
Mary Magdalene should leave us .
Women are unworthy of the life.
Jesus said:
I shall lead her so as to make her a
man, that she may become a Living Spirit, as
you other men for every woman made manly, shall enter
the Kingdom of Heaven.

Col 3v16: Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

I know on the basis of what it says that it is not a revelation from God.

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.

Well this is how i learned it, there is One God, Jesus is called God, The Spirit is called God, The Father is called God.

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?

Other Christians could have done the same. You see the basis that I have just rejected the gospel of Thomas it works like that. I'm sure there are other criteria but this is what matters to me.

 

[James the Persian]

There is a remarkable difference between my beliefs and any protestant church. Why do you feel a need to pigeon hole me, even when you KNOW that I do not feel comfortable with that label? You are probably closer to the protestants than I am.

Where have I pigeon holed you? I didn't call you Protestant and nor, so far as I can see, has anyone else here in the thread done so. On the matter of the canon of Scripture and the issue of Holy Tradition, your arguments fall much closer into the Protestant camp than mine, which is all I said, so do you want to quit playing the martyr now? I must say that I'm intrigued as to how my faith is more like Protestantism than yours, though, because it most certainly doesn't seem like it to me. Would you care to provide me with some examples? Probably best not to do it here, though.

James

 

[James the Persian]

I have read the gospel of thomas and it contradicts scripture.

You know, if you're asked why you reject the Gospel of Thomas as scripture, you really can't use this argument. In effect the question was, 'How do you know what the canon of Scripture is?' not, 'Given the canon you have, should you also accept the Gospel of Thomas?'. Your argument is entirely circular. How do you know what is and is not Scripture such that you can compare other texts to it?

James

 

[*Paul*]

All he did was ask me why I reject the gospel of Thomas so I told Him why I do.

 

[James the Persian]

All he did was ask me why I reject the gospel of Thomas so I told Him why I do.

No, that's not all he did at all. He asked you the question as one part of a long series of questions designed to understand why, and on what authority, you accept the canon that you do. You know this full well, so why do you answer as though the context does not exist? Just sems a little disingenuous.

James

 

[*Paul*]

I was responding to this:

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?

Believe me I am not being disingenuous if anything I have become confused as to what we are discussing here: Sola Scriptura, or the canon; I feel as though the thread is becoming fragmented but i really am keen to discuss these things and I have nothing to fear from anything you guys can say as I have already heard all the best arguements going, i have read Catholic apologists and listened to them in debate.
What are we debating? Scripture vs tradition, Sola Scriputra or the canon?
From the OP I would say Sola Scriptura.

 

[James the Persian]

I was responding to this:



Believe me I am not being disingenuous if anything I have become confused as to what we are discussing here: Sola Scriptura, or the canon; I feel as though the thread is becoming fragmented but i really am keen to discuss these things and I have nothing to fear from anything you guys can say as I have already heard all the best arguements going, i have read Catholic apologists and listened to them in debate.
What are we debating? Scripture vs tradition, Sola Scriputra or the canon?
From the OP I would say Sola Scriptura.

I don't see how you can separate them. In order to adhere to Scripture alone you must first be able to define what is and is not Scripture, which is why you were asked about the Gospel of Thomas, unless I'm completely mistaken. As far as I can see, the idea of adherence to Scripture alone falls at the first hurdle as accepting Scripture as the only authority (and what you previously described, Scripture as the highest rather than sole authority, is our view rather than sola scriptura) results in an inability to decide what constitutes Scripture in the first place.

James

 

[quietlight]

What DID Jesus teach us to do? Love!

Yes. And he instructed us to teach, and to be good citizens, etc. Of course, the greatest of all these is love - and this certainly does not fit in directly with our converstation, but I will always take up the opportunity for agreement.

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 try not to assume anyone ascribe's to Sola Scriptura unless they say so. At the beginning of this thread, I invited those who do believe in SS to debate me on this topic - that is part of the reason I assumed you believed in SS. I'd be happy to discuss the approach of letting the spirit guide your every belief, but that would be more appropriate for another thread, don't you think?

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

Very well...I can't say that I'm disappointed as I would love to learn from you, but as I already mentioned, that may be better for another thread.

Fortunately for me I do believe that the Spirit guides me, and more importantly, the Spirit is guiding my church. I am a fallen man redeemed by grace. In my daily life I work in fear and trembling to come to know Christ more intimately. God has not left me alone in this daily struggle but given me the gift of the Church to help guide me and bring me closer to Him

 

[quietlight]

I have read the gospel of thomas and it contradicts scripture: (Red = gospel of thomas)
...
I know on the basis of what it says that it is not a revelation from God.

Very well. You should know that I too reject the Gospel of Thomas - and for the EXACT same reason. It contradicts the true Gospel.

But how do you know that the Gospel which we accept is the true Gospel?

Maybe a better question would be this: how did you discover the Gospel the first time?

Well this is how i learned it, there is One God, Jesus is called God, The Spirit is called God, The Father is called God.

So you are trusting the authority of someone who taught this to you (obviously in light of the further readings you have done)?

BTW, as an aside, you did a great job presenting scriptural evidence for the Trinity - that post was probably the most complete scriptural evidence I have seen for the Trinity yet.

Other Christians could have done the same. You see the basis that I have just rejected the gospel of Thomas it works like that. I'm sure there are other criteria but this is what matters to me.

Right, but on what basis have you made the initial acceptance of the Bible? Did you accept the whole Bible before you read every word of it? When reading that first book of the Bible, on what authority did you take it to be Revealed truth unless you accepted the teaching of another person who told you that the books of the Bible are the Word of God?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I must say that I'm intrigued as to how my faith is more like Protestantism than yours, though, because it most certainly doesn't seem like it to me.

Both religions rely on rules, laws and decrees by man. Synods, councils and a discrete hierarchy of churches that lead to a governing body. Having Christ and Christ alone as the head of all of the churches is unique among the churches espousing a Christian ideology today.

The Spirit takes care of all of these man made devices. Many see the rejection of Catholicism with a continual reference to the scriptures as being Sola Scriptura which is incredibly short sighted. Sola Scriptura denies the power of the Spirit in the life of the disciple just as having a separate priesthood attempts to replace the Spirit. Relying on the Spirit for understanding removes the "Sola" from our reliance on the Scriptures.

Now as for claiming "martyrdom", you do me and this discussion a disservice. How is clarifying what I believe martyrdom? Where have I claimed any damages? Perhaps you wish to keep mischaracterizing my beliefs? As much as you would love to categorize me as such, I am NOT a protestant. I adhere to the ways and teachings of the first century church and not one that is only 500 years old. Unless you want to call Peter a Protestant, than please refrain from calling me the same.

 

[quietlight]

Believe me I am not being disingenuous if anything I have become confused as to what we are discussing here: Sola Scriptura, or the canon; I feel as though the thread is becoming fragmented but i really am keen to discuss these things and I have nothing to fear from anything you guys can say as I have already heard all the best arguements going, i have read Catholic apologists and listened to them in debate.
What are we debating? Scripture vs tradition, Sola Scriputra or the canon?
From the OP I would say Sola Scriptura.

My intentions are pretty simple - I am interested in understanding how someone who believes in Sola Scriptura is able to justify that belief in light of various questions. My hope is that we can have a good conversation/debate.

Obviously one of us is wrong in our beliefs - there is only one truth. If I am wrong in my belief, I would hope that I have the humility to recognize that. At the same time, I would hope that anyone who reads this and sees that they are wrong in their belief is able to recognize it as well.

Most importantly, though, I would hope that we are not debating to showcase just how much each of us knows and how well we can defend our individual beliefs. I would hope that we are debating to come to know each other since we do share the same belief in Christ with some unfortunate disagreements.

So what is this debate about? Sola Scriptura and the reasoning behind it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Yes. And he instructed us to teach, and to be good citizens, etc. Of course, the greatest of all these is love - and this certainly does not fit in directly with our converstation, but I will always take up the opportunity for agreement.

There is probably much we agree on.

I try not to assume anyone ascribe's to Sola Scriptura unless they say so.

Actually, you will find very few Protestants and non-Protestants who use this term. It's uniquely a Catholic term used to describe why many reject your tradition.

At the beginning of this thread, I invited those who do believe in SS to debate me on this topic - that is part of the reason I assumed you believed in SS. I'd be happy to discuss the approach of letting the spirit guide your every belief, but that would be more appropriate for another thread, don't you think?

This particular post is to look into why many protestants believe in 'Sola Scriptura'. Even if you do not believe in Sola Scriptura, but you believe that all a person needs is to read the bible to get to know Christ, this question would apply to you.

I took your words at face value. Emboldening is mine.

Very well...I can't say that I'm disappointed as I would love to learn from you, but as I already mentioned, that may be better for another thread.

Let me quote Paul:

I Corinthians 11:1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. NIV

Fortunately for me I do believe that the Spirit guides me, and more importantly, the Spirit is guiding my church. I am a fallen man redeemed by grace. In my daily life I work in fear and trembling to come to know Christ more intimately. God has not left me alone in this daily struggle but given me the gift of the Church to help guide me and bring me closer to Him

I have chosen another Counselor.

 

[Scuba Pete]

But how do you know that the Gospel which we accept is the true Gospel?

Maybe a better question would be this: how did you discover the Gospel the first time?

Though I am not Paul, I have to point out that the obvious and scriptural response to this query is the SPIRIT.

 

[quietlight]

Actually, you will find very few Protestants and non-Protestants who use this term. It's uniquely a Catholic term used to describe why many reject your tradition.

My experience has been different - I have found a good # of protestants who follow Sola Scriptura. But that is neither here nor there.

I took your words at face value.

Please do not take this as me accusing you or telling you what you believe, but my impression is that you believe that all you need is the Spirit to guide you. The Bible is not written by God, it is more of a 'blog' as you put it.

From how the Spirit has guided you, is there a Bible, or are there just scriptures which can act as guides?

I have chosen another Counselor.

I would hope not as I am following the Holy Spirit.

 

[quietlight]

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.

I didn't want to leave you out of the conversation - I thought this comment deserved having a response...

What is ironic is that there is a touch of truth to this statement - yes, the Catholic Church includes the books that they know to be inspired. This is how the Bible came to be...in fact, the Bible that you read is in large part due to the Catholic Church.

What Bible do you read - and why do you read that Bible? At the risk of assuming something (which Scuba Pete has called me out on a few times), do you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God?

 

[Scuba Pete]

My experience has been different - I have found a good # of protestants who follow Sola Scriptura. But that is neither here nor there.

But few will refer to themselves believing in "Sola Scriptura". It's a Catholic term and many do not understand the implications.

Please do not take this as me accusing you or telling you what you believe, but my impression is that you believe that all you need is the Spirit to guide you. The Bible is not written by God, it is more of a 'blog' as you put it.

Not quite, but closer. The scriptures have a role, but I do not deify them.

II Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. NIV

From how the Spirit has guided you, is there a Bible, or are there just scriptures which can act as guides?

I have read them all, but for it's readability, I prefer the NIV. You can learn from the Apocrypha and even the Gospel of Thomas. But you can also see the limitations in all that man writes.

The real issue is how we view the Scriptures. Too many are seeking to replace one rule book with New one. This was never meant to be. Rules and regulations could never produce righteousness. If your Christianity pushes the "Thou shalt not" mentality then you are not using the Spirit to guide you.

 

[quietlight]

But few will refer to themselves believing in "Sola Scriptura". It's a Catholic term and many do not understand the implications.

Come to think about it, they do not refer to themselves as Sola Scriptura, rather, they refer to their beliefs as "the Bible alone". Maybe I am making a leap here to think this is the same thing...do you consider a 'bible alone' approach and Sola Scriptura to essentially be the same thing?

Not quite, but closer. The scriptures have a role, but I do not deify them.

II Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. NIV

But neither do I deify them. I believe they were written at the hands of men inspired by God, but that does not make them God. Man on his own knows nothing and can do nothing except by and through the Spirit.

I do believe the scriptures to be all true and divinely inspired, but I wouldn't classify that as deifying them.

I have read them all, but for it's readability, I prefer the NIV. You can learn from the Apocrypha and even the Gospel of Thomas. But you can also see the limitations in all that man writes.

The real issue is how we view the Scriptures. Too many are seeking to replace one rule book with New one. This was never meant to be. Rules and regulations could never produce righteousness. If your Christianity pushes the "Thou shalt not" mentality then you are not using the Spirit to guide you.

I still don't think that you fall into the category of people that I was hoping to debate with. You do not believe in Sola Scriptura, and you also do not believe (from what I can tell) that the scriptures alone are enough to lead us to Christ. From what I can tell, we need the Spirit to lead us.

This does beg the question of the role that the scriptures play in your spiritual life.

I think at some point it would be fascinating for us to discuss the life of the early Christian, but that certainly would be a distraction from this thread which I am trying to keep on a fairly narrow focus.

 

[joeboonda]

Authority, of eyewitness accounts. I know the defeat of the Spanish Armada, Napoleon, the Norman Conquest, the Revolutionary War, by the authority of the writings of the eyewitnesses to those events. If people questioned other things like they question the authority of the eyewitness accounts of the Bible, I have to say nobody could know anything at all. As far as scripture goes I refer to Paul's good friend, Timothy:


II Timothy 3:15
You have known the Holy Scriptures ever since you were a little child. They are able to teach you how to be saved by believing in Christ Jesus. 16 God has breathed life into all of Scripture. It is useful for teaching us what is true. It is useful for correcting our mistakes. It is useful for making our lives whole again. It is useful for training us to do what is right. 17 By using Scripture, a man of God can be completely prepared to do every good thing.

Here we see that the Holy Scriptures:

1. Are able to teach us how to be saved by trusting in Jesus.
2. God has breathed life into ALL of scripture.
3. It is useful for teaching us what is true.
4. For correcting our mistakes.
5. For making our lives whole again.
6. For training us to do what is right.

7. And finaly, by using the scripture, a man of God can be COMPLETELY PREPARED to do EVERY GOOD THING.