The Bible Alone is Not Enough

[quietlight]

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.

So we know what books belong in the Bible through what was handed down from the Apostles and the authority that they had as eyewitnesses?

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.

Amen to that. No disagreement here.

 

[joeboonda]

So we know what books belong in the Bible through what was handed down from the Apostles and the authority that they had as eyewitnesses?

Among other things.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

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.

Yeah, obviously, I really don't know a lot about this. Excuse me for asking.

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.

The very first definition of "canon" from dictionary.com:

an ecclesiastical rule or law enacted by a council or other competent authority and, in the Roman Catholic Church, approved by the pope.

So what was the purpose of the canon, exactly?

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.

I didn't even know what sola scriptura WAS before I entered this discussion. It is a term that has never been used in my church. I simply stated that I believe the Bible that includes:

Genesis
Exodous
Leviticus
Numbers
Deauteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zecheriah
Malachi
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galtians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Hebrews
James
Jude
Revalations

is all that I need to get to Heaven. Do you believe I am going to Hell because I don't use your Bible?

I also believe that the books in the preceding list are the only ones that I myself personally am going to use as my authority and model. I would not mind reading other books to gain historical insights, and I'm sure they would be very interesting.

That's it. That's all I believe. You need to relax and let people do their own thing. Your way is not neccesarily the only way. :no:

 

[quietlight]

Among other things.

What are these other things?

 

[quietlight]

I didn't even know what sola scriptura WAS before I entered this discussion. It is a term that has never been used in my church. I simply stated that I believe the Bible that includes:

Genesis
Exodous
Leviticus
Numbers
Deauteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zecheriah
Malachi
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galtians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Hebrews
James
Jude
Revalations

is all that I need to get to Heaven. Do you believe I am going to Hell because I don't use your Bible?

I also believe that the books in the preceding list are the only ones that I myself personally am going to use as my authority and model. I would not mind reading other books to gain historical insights, and I'm sure they would be very interesting.

That's it. That's all I believe. You need to relax and let people do their own thing. Your way is not neccesarily the only way. :no:

May I ask why you believe these books are the only ones you are going to use as your authority and model?

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

May I ask why you believe these books are the only ones you are going to use as your authority and model?

This is about to sound really bad, and i'm really sorry, but it's because they're the books I was raised on and the books that everyone in my church uses as their authority and model. And a bunch of those people are way older and wiser than me, namely my parents, and elders, and other people whom I look up to and respect. Right now, I trust that they have a good reason, but I will be presenting the question to my evangelist for our Sunday Night Questions&Answer sermon.

 

[Quiddity]

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.

Genious! Christ as head of the Church....who of thunk?

Seriously Pete, you may not like being categorized (and I'll personally respect that) but for you to call others rules, decrees, synods, etc. "man made" while excluding youself from this is but finger pointing.

We all mold our view of Christ/God from somewhere. If you do not, then I'd be intrigued to see how you manage to not use your own God given human faculties while still molding your own Christ.

 

[quietlight]

This is about to sound really bad, and i'm really sorry, but it's because they're the books I was raised on and the books that everyone in my church uses as their authority and model. And a bunch of those people are way older and wiser than me, namely my parents, and elders, and other people whom I look up to and respect. Right now, I trust that they have a good reason, but I will be presenting the question to my evangelist for our Sunday Night Questions&Answer sermon.

No need to be sorry - this is how the Bible has been handed down for ages. Its how I learned of the Bible, and I'm willing to be most people on this board learned of the Bible in a similar fashion.

Please let us know what your evangelist says. Specifically ask him/her why the books in your Bible are accepted as the word of God, and why some books that were written by Apostles and various disciples are not accepted as the word of God by most Christian religions.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

No need to be sorry - this is how the Bible has been handed down for ages. Its how I learned of the Bible, and I'm willing to be most people on this board learned of the Bible in a similar fashion.

Please let us know what your evangelist says. Specifically ask him/her why the books in your Bible are accepted as the word of God, and why some books that were written by Apostles and various disciples are not accepted as the word of God by most Christian religions.

Ok, will do.

 

[Scuba Pete]

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?

"Sola Scripturists" don't really exist. This is a Catholic term to combat those of us who reject your tradition. Prtotestants use their traditions and decrees and a combination of the Spirit and Grace to figure out what is right or wrong.

Some of us refuse to accept anyone's understanding of the Scriptures but our own. I use the Spirit to help me understand what is from God and more importantly, what is not. Obviously, none of us use "just" the scriptures to come to a belief in God or to formulate how we respond to God.

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.

As I pointed out, very few (if any) rely on JUST the scriptures. I have been pegged as a "Sola Scripturist" by many of the Catholics on this Board. As it was a brand new term to me, I really had to figure out what they were talking about. It was only recently that I saw the underlying flaw.

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

You can probably tell that I spend a lot of time studying them and even more time applying them to my life! The more I apply them to my life the more the more I understand them via the Spirit.

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.

Sure!

 

[quietlight]

"Sola Scripturists" don't really exist. This is a Catholic term to combat those of us who reject your tradition. Prtotestants use their traditions and decrees and a combination of the Spirit and Grace to figure out what is right or wrong.

I wouldn't necessarily agree. I have met many protestants who do not call themselves Sola Scripturists nor would I call them such.

My use of the term is simply anyone who believes all revelation is contained in the Bible.

Some of us refuse to accept anyone's understanding of the Scriptures but our own. I use the Spirit to help me understand what is from God and more importantly, what is not. Obviously, none of us use "just" the scriptures to come to a belief in God or to formulate how we respond to God.

Do you know anyone that has the same understanding of the Scriptures as you?

As I pointed out, very few (if any) rely on JUST the scriptures. I have been pegged as a "Sola Scripturist" by many of the Catholics on this Board. As it was a brand new term to me, I really had to figure out what they were talking about. It was only recently that I saw the underlying flaw.

I would agree that few people actually rely just on the scriptures, but many claim to. You have already corrected me on the fact that you are not a sola scripturist, so I will certainly avoid calling you one.

You can probably tell that I spend a lot of time studying them and even more time applying them to my life! The more I apply them to my life the more the more I understand them via the Spirit.

I am wondering now how you have come to know God? Was it through the scriptures (even in part)?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Genious! Christ as head of the Church....who of thunk?

I googled "head of the catholic church" and got this: http://www.google.com/search?q=head...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Somehow, Jesus failed to make the first page. Who'd a thunk? I must admit that I expected this.

Seriously Pete, you may not like being categorized (and I'll personally respect that) but for you to call others rules, decrees, synods, etc. "man made" while excluding youself from this is but finger pointing.

I disagree. This is a main departure from most Christian based religions who create decree after decree stating WHAT they believe. I just refer to the Scriptures and let the Spirit guide me to understanding them.

We all mold our view of Christ/God from somewhere. If you do not, then I'd be intrigued to see how you manage to not use your own God given human faculties while still molding your own Christ.

Again, I am not sure why you miss the Spirit in this equation. Perhaps a scripture study of the Spirit will help to clarify what I believe in and why.

 

[Katzpur]

I didn't even know what sola scriptura WAS before I entered this discussion. It is a term that has never been used in my church.

The term is not used in my church either, but the concept is either there or it's not. From what you are saying, the concept of sola scriptura is part of what your church teaches.

Do you believe I am going to Hell because I don't use your Bible?

Maybe I missed a post somewhere along the line, but I don't recall anybody saying that entrance into heaven has anything at all to do with which books are part of the Bible.

I also believe that the books in the preceding list are the only ones that I myself personally am going to use as my authority and model. I would not mind reading other books to gain historical insights, and I'm sure they would be very interesting.

I'm curious as to why you cut the list off with Revelation. I use the KJV myself, so the Bible I use would have the same books in it as the one you use (you may even use the KJV, for all I know). But do you really have a reason for excluding the books that would be in Victor's Bible, for instance?

 

[quietlight]

I googled "head of the catholic church" and got this: http://www.google.com/search?q=head+of+the+catholic+church&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a
Somehow, Jesus failed to make the first page. Who'd a thunk? I must admit that I expected this.

Oh now...c'mon...that's not a very fair representation, do you think? Google doesn't define Catholic doctrine.

 

[Katzpur]

Oh now...c'mon...that's not a very fair representation, do you think?

You took the words right out of my mouth. I was just about to post the same thing, and literally in pretty much the same words. We all ought to be able to express what we believe without having to tell the other guy what he believes.

 

[Katzpur]

I just refer to the Scriptures and let the Spirit guide me to understanding them.

All I want to know is if I just refer to the scriptures and let the Spirit guide me in understanding them, and if I come to a different interpretation of them then you do, does that mean that the Spirit didn't guide me after all or what?

 

[*Paul*]

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?

Because I was born again by believing it, the Holy Spirit came to live im my heart as Jesus promised, i recieved a new nature as Peter said. I started to love those things that the bible said are pleasing to God which formerly had no hold in my heart, i started to dislike those things which were not pleasing to Him, more and more i despise them, I look back on my old life with shame, i am a new creature (really and truly) since I believed that gospel, the promises of Jesus that He promised to those who would believe on Him have been evident in my life since i believed, this is how i know it is the true gospel.

1Pt 1v23: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1Pt 1v25: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

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

I can't remember.

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

Not at all, I never said that did I? Rather I question the trinity that I was expected to believe as a Christian to see if the bible really taught it as I could not reconcile it within my mind at first or the deity of Jesus. So I didn't accept anybodys authority but challenged it against the Word of God as I do with all I am taught.

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.

Thank you very much.

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?

I always had the belief that the bible was true, I never doubted it but accepted that in a childlike way but i never submitted to the things it said until I was born of the Spirit. So my initial acceptance of the bible was blind faith trusting whoever it was that taught me (probably my dad) that it was true.

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

? I read the new testament and psalms from the age of 11-14 in my daily readings in the free gideons bible I was given when I started secondary school, I never understood most of it and found little comfort in it for me. I stopped reading except sporadically (when i was sad or guilty) until i was saved 7-8 years later, then did every word of it start speaking to me, it was just as though it was being written inside of me. It thrilled me, challenged me and spoke to me so much, more than that whenever I had a question about what it said in one place i would find the answer in another, the whole collection supports itself and has the same themes running through it. God has spoken to me from every book in the bible that is the truth, the prophecies in there give me further evidence that it is of divine origin.The truth it speaks about the heart of man, the way there is no spin to whitewash it's subjects and so on.
I have read some apocryphal works Bel and the dragon springs to mind and some of the gnostic texts, the koran, the church fathers, some philosophy and nothing speaks to me in this way. This is why I said, I know His voice and I hear Him though the scriptures.
How can I possibly view it as deficient when God has spoken to me so much through His words? It's not like I refuse to read other works. I believe this experience is similar for all born again believers.

 

[Quiddity]

I googled "head of the catholic church" and got this: http://www.google.com/search?q=head+of+the+catholic+church&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a
Somehow, Jesus failed to make the first page. Who'd a thunk? I must admit that I expected this.

Then it's settled! :areyoucra C'mon Pete, you know things need explaining. They always do.

I disagree. This is a main departure from most Christian based religions who create decree after decree stating WHAT they believe. I just refer to the Scriptures and let the Spirit guide me to understanding them.

To each his own. I suppose I extend my faculties further then the Bible then. What can I say? You have more faith then me.

Again, I am not sure why you miss the Spirit in this equation. Perhaps a scripture study of the Spirit will help to clarify what I believe in and why.

Perhaps...

 

[athanasius]

the Catechism of the Catholic Church would give a good answer. Paragraph 874, and Paragraph 755 right before it says the The Church is, the body of Christ. Not the body of the Pope! The Popes jsut retains the office of prime minister that was given to Peter(Matt 16:13-19). This office alone carreid with it the Kings authrotiy(Is 22:20-25) to run his cabinet.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I wouldn't necessarily agree. I have met many protestants who do not call themselves Sola Scripturists nor would I call them such.

Have you met any protestant who DID claim to be "Sola Scriptura"? How many have even heard it before?

My use of the term is simply anyone who believes all revelation is contained in the Bible.

Wikipedia gives an interesting read on the 5 solas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas Using their definition, I must admit that I believe in most of what is written, with sola gratia being the MAIN exception. Here Sola Scriptura is couched not as using only Scripture for faith (which is how YOU couched it here), but as a rejection of Catholic traditions (decrees and such) in order to understand the Scriptures.

Do you know anyone that has the same understanding of the Scriptures as you?

Not really. I could only wish to meet a kindred spirit.

I am wondering now how you have come to know God? Was it through the scriptures (even in part)?

The Bible made a promise and I found that promise fulfilled. The Spirit did the rest.