The Bible Alone is Not Enough

[Scuba Pete]

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?

No... we all have different understandings of the scriptures. The more we open our hearts and apply the concepts, the more we will believe the same things.

 

[athanasius]

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?

Great point my good friend!

 

[Ernestine]

I'm not sure I understand your question. The Bible is one book consists of 66 smaller books that were written under divine inspiration by various authors. Evidence of God's authorship is seen throughout the Bible in that all 66 books share one central theme--the vindication of God's name, Jehovah and the establishment of his Kingdom through his son, Jesus Christ.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm not sure I understand your question. The Bible is one book consists of 66 smaller books that were written under divine inspiration by various authors. Evidence of God's authorship is seen throughout the Bible in that all 66 books share one central theme--the vindication of God's name, Jehovah and the establishment of his Kingdom through his son, Jesus Christ.

I don't believe any of us are questioning the value of the Bible. The question is more a matter of whether there is a need for some other authority in addition to the Bible, be it holy tradition, continuing revelation or somthing else. Generally speaking, a Christian will either accept that the Bible alone (sola scriptura) is sufficient for us to know God's mind and will or he will reject this doctrine in favor of the concept that, while the Bible is God's word, we are not free to interpret it according to our own understanding.

 

[quietlight]

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.

So you accepted the books initially on the authority of your father? Why did he believe in the Bible?

To save us from going down a very long path here, let's shorten things. You came to believe in the Bible because when it was handed to you, you were given the grace to see the Truth in the Bible (correct me if I'm wrong). You did not go out and read all the individual books of the Bible and determine that these books should be in a collected work of inspired material - rather, you accepted that the Bible as it was given to you is the word of God. Is this the case?

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.

I trust that the Bible has spoken to you - as it should! It is indeed the inspired word of God, and what a great gift this is to us! But just because it has spoked to you does not mean that the Bible is necessarily the complete revelation that was given to the Apostles - does it?

I apologize if I am mispeaking here, but it seems as if you are accepting scripture alone in a de facto position - because you have not found anything else that speaks to you, and because the Bible does speak to you, then it must be all there is. I am sure this assertion should be corrected, so I will await your correction.

 

[quietlight]

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

I have already answered this question - I have met several protestants who claim scripture alone. If you want to explain the difference between this, I would be happy to listen.

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.

You'll have to excuse me, but Wikipedia is possibly just slightly more reliable on issues of faith than looking up 'head of the Catholic Church' in Google. With most things Roman Catholic related, they are not 100% correct.

In terms of their sola scriptura definition, the line I would agree is correct is this: "The Bible is the only inspired and authoritative Word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and is accessible to all..." That is their definition of sola scriptura - the rest is their conjecture on what it is opposed to.

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

So you are all alone in your faith on this earth? The Spirit has enlightened you and you alone in your faith?

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

So your faith started with the Bible?

 

[quietlight]

I'm not sure I understand your question. The Bible is one book consists of 66 smaller books that were written under divine inspiration by various authors. Evidence of God's authorship is seen throughout the Bible in that all 66 books share one central theme--the vindication of God's name, Jehovah and the establishment of his Kingdom through his son, Jesus Christ.

Since I don't know where you come from, please do not take offense if I wronly assume your beliefs...

The question is this: on what authority do you accept the books of the Bible?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So here is my question: if the Bible alone is enough, can anyone tell me when the Bible was actually compiled into the version that we know today?

Welcome to the forum.

most of the information i have seen says the Council Of Nicea compiled the scripture into what is known as the bible back in 325AD.

 

[Katzpur]

Welcome to the forum.

most of the information i have seen says the Council Of Nicea compiled the scripture into what is known as the bible back in 325AD.

Huh? Where did you get this information, by the way?

 

[quietlight]

Welcome to the forum.

most of the information i have seen says the Council Of Nicea compiled the scripture into what is known as the bible back in 325AD.

I would agree. The follow up question to this is...how did the Christians before 325AD (or thereabouts) know which scriptures to follow and which scriptures were heretical? More importantly, how did people outside of Christianity come to know the faith outside of the Bible?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That is certainly well stated (if not lengthy).

I would really be interested, though, in hearing what some non-Catholics believe in terms of the Bible.

1. How did the Bible come to be?
2. What did the Christians do before there was a Bible?
3. Is the Bible the only guide to know Jesus?
4. If not, what else are we to rely on?

I am constantly baffled by Christians who rely solely on Scripture without understanding where it came from...

1.) 325 AD... The Council Of Nicea gathered and compiled the scriptures "they" thought were important to keep.

I'm not sure if this was done to promote and further the christian way of life.

2.) I assume that people studdied from the scrolls or the deciples taught the "gentiles" verbally.

3.) The Qur'an speaks of Jesus. I believe it speaks of Jesus more than it does Muhhamed.

4.) I can't answer your fourth question. I'm an athiest so this is something you will have to answer yourself.

 

[Katzpur]

What is the "Christian" Bible to begin with? Historically, that question is far more difficult to answer than you might suppose. For instance, in 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.

Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.

The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Other books that are mentioned by name in today's Bibles cannot be found there at all. One example is Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans. Why was it less authoritative than his other epistles? It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. What reason is there to believe it was so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon? Or maybe it was just lost.

If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?

 

[quietlight]

Katzpur - great job on demonstrating just what confusion there really was as to what should be considered inspired books!

So how did all these alternative canons fall aside with one book rising to be accepted by all of Christianity as the accepted books of the Bible?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Latter Day Saints do not believe in Sola Scriptura and we believe that many plain and precious doctrines were lost from scriptures so the Bible is not enough.

I guess I don't fit your requirements but I will be interested to hear the argument of someone who does believe this.

I agree with this point. it should be common knowledge that the scriptures were compliled into what is known as the bible. there should be more scriptures out there. One of the most recent findings are the scrolls of Qumran. some of these scrolls may give a totally different account of the life ands times of certain peolpe back then. I'm not sure if that kind of information would change the religious community but it does make me wonder.

 

[James the Persian]

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.

Not so. Firstly, we have no head but Christ. Secondly, canons are not rules but guides, applied according to the needs of the individual according to the principle of economia. That is they are applied according to the principle of the individual, with the rest of the Church, in order to help that individual - that's love not legalism. We have no governing body as you put it at all, which is why the RC envoy to us has famously remarked that we 'don't really exist'. So how are we similar agin? Doctrinally, you are far closer than we are, that is certain, and structurally we are utterly dissimilar to the way you mischaracterise us.

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.

I don't see it that way and I don't see anywhere where you can glean such an idea from either Scripture or Tradition, but that's fair enough. I don't however, se how this negates the term sola scriptura. I doubt there are many Christians who don't believe that either the Church as a whole or the individual is guided by the Holy Spirit so the sola really only refers to authorities in the world. Clearly all Christians accept the authority of God.

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.

Clarifying your beliefs is not what I was referring to. Claiming that people called you Protestant, labeled you, pigeon holed you etc. is. I've looked back through the thread and I can't see one instance, other than where you were mistaken for a sola scripturalist. That's understandable because you write just like one and always turn up to defend the idea (or your version of it) whenever it's debated. I made the same mistake once and you objected. I haven't done it since, not in this trhread or anyone else. Unless you can come up with a quote of mine from somewhere oin this thread where I referred to you as a Protestant or directly called you one (which you can't as I did not do so) then I rest my case, and your whining about be 'labeled' was nothing more than an attempt to play the victim. It's hardly the first time you've done it.

James

 

[James the Persian]

So what was the purpose of the canon, exactly?

Unfortunately, that is merely a use of the term canon much as it is a use of the term to refer to the collection of books making up the Bible. The original meaning of the term canon, and thereason it was used in these circumstances, is a measuring rod. Canons aren't really laws but guides, by the way, though in the RCC they do take on a more legalistic flavour. The purpose of the canon of Scripture was not, then, to make a complete collection of inspired texts, but to make a central collection of unquestionably orthodox texts against which all other texts and doctrines could be measured. Such an idea pre-supposes the existance of inspired texts outside the canon, which is why I said that the common Protestant view is overly black and white.

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

Fair enough. Many who follow the teaching don't know its Latin name. It really doesn't matter.

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

No it's not all you need to get to Heaven - no amount of Scripture can do that, but of course you aren't damned for using your canon. As I said, there simply never was one canon in the first place and besides we don't believe that non-Orthodox Christians are automatically damned.

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.

Fine, if that's what you want. As fas as I am concerned in rejecting the rest and rejecting Holy Tradition you are cutting yourself off from some of the deposit of faith left to the Apostles, but it's entirely up to you.

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:

No, you need to relax and not take offence when people acquaint you with the history of the canon. I never once suggested that you had to do things my way so don't accuse me of doing so. It's not my fault that history shows the Reformers and their actions in an unfavourable light.

James

 

[James the Persian]

1.) 325 AD... The Council Of Nicea gathered and compiled the scriptures "they" thought were important to keep.

I'm not sure if this was done to promote and further the christian way of life.

Not this trash again. I'm really going to have to change my signature to add the following:

The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the canon of Scripture.

Don't believe me? Go read the canons for yourself. You can find them online. Nicea never even discussed Scripture. It simply didn't come up and in actual fact the first council that ever made mention of the current canon is the local council held at Carthage some 70 years later. That, though, had no authority over the universal Church and so the canon still wasn't settled. In actual fact there never was one point, whether in a council or not, where the canon was settled - it was a long slow process taking centuries. Just to be clear, after Nicea (according to this most bandied about myth) supposedly settled the canon, there were 4 different canons in use in the one Church (up until the Council of Chalcedon took Ethiopia into the OO communion), including three versions of the New Testament. The Greek and Latin canons agreed on the New Testament but differed in the Old. The Syriac canon used a single work called the Diatessaron in place of the four Gospels but otherwise agreed with the Greek canon. The Ethiopian canon differed in both Old and New Testament books. All of these, save the Syriac version, are still in use today even. So much for Nicea settling the canon.

James

 

[James the Persian]

Katzpur - great job on demonstrating just what confusion there really was as to what should be considered inspired books!

So how did all these alternative canons fall aside with one book rising to be accepted by all of Christianity as the accepted books of the Bible?

Short answer - they didn't, as you'll see from my previous post. I believe that the Bible used by the Asyrian Church of the East is also different (though I'm unclear on the details), which means that currently there 4, or perhaps 5, canons in use. The four I'm sure of range from largest to smallest as: Ethiopian, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, though the latter three do not disagree vis a vis the New Testament.

James

 

[*Paul*]

You did not go out and read all the individual books of the Bible and determine that these books should be in a collected work of inspired material - rather, you accepted that the Bible as it was given to you is the word of God. Is this the case?

I said i accepted it intially with a childlike faith and trust, the same way I accept a prescription that a doctor gives me when i am ill.

I trust that the Bible has spoken to you - as it should! It is indeed the inspired word of God, and what a great gift this is to us! But just because it has spoked to you does not mean that the Bible is necessarily the complete revelation that was given to the Apostles - does it?

Not universally but i was speaking from a personal point of view, it has authority over me because God has proved to me that it is His word by fulfilling so many promises contained therin to me, by speaking to my heart when i read it, by not leaving my faith incomplete or my thirst unquenched and by giving me instruction in righteousness, it has proved fully sufficient to me just as Paul said all scripture does.

I apologize if I am mispeaking here, but it seems as if you are accepting scripture alone in a de facto position - because you have not found anything else that speaks to you, and because the Bible does speak to you, then it must be all there is. I am sure this assertion should be corrected, so I will await your correction.

I'm not sure what de-facto means but it is not because nothing else speaks to me it is because God has spoken to me in such a way through it and has helped me to know my Saviour so much deeper, it all makes complete sense it is so uniform throughout it answers all my spiritual questions. It is complete and sufficient it claims to be the word of God and lacks nothing.
It has done and continues to for me the very thing that it was given for and that is that I may know God and trust Him and be reconciled to Him, walk according to His ways, have a hope for the future and open my eyes about what is really in the heart of mankind.
I have still yet to be told what my faith as a person who follows the principle of Sola Scriptura (which I absolutely do) is lacking. That is the crux of the matter surely.

 

[*Paul*]

Not this trash again. I'm really going to have to change my signature to add the following:

The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the canon of Scripture.

:biglaugh: Now that is a good idea as you seem to say this every other day.