The Bible Alone is Not Enough

[James the Persian]

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

I know, and it's really getting irritating, which is something I can do without now as I'm on my second day of strict fasting (Great Lent started yesterday for us after a week of lax fasting - Cheesefare Week which is kind of like Shrove Tuesday, but obviously longer). Give me a few more days and I'll be fine but just at the moment I'm finding my self-control to be suffering a little.

James

 

[*Paul*]

I know, and it's really getting irritating, which is something I can do without now as I'm on my second day of strict fasting (Great Lent started yesterday for us after a week of lax fasting - Cheesefare Week which is kind of like Shrove Tuesday, but obviously longer). Give me a few more days and I'll be fine but just at the moment I'm finding my self-control to be suffering a little.

James

Are you still off the ciggys too? :cigar: Lax fasting? Great Lent? Are these specifically orthodox traditions? Do you just give up one thing you like for lent or is it a whole meal or all food?

 

[wizanda]

Very quickly on this the Bible can not be enough alone, as it exists with the other books, not without.
God is one, Man isn’t?

In the Dhamapada, the Upanishads, the Quran and the Bible the Mustard seed is spoken of as the same thing; a seed doesn’t need books to grow, it needs the light of God which flows through all life, as God is the lord of the living.

Also the Fig tree, is spoken of by Yeshua, yet is also referred to in the Gita as the same, of a warriors of light coming to end kali or Metal beast (Roman empire).

There is possibly loads more, just found many of these through researching for oneness.
It’s one love (God), not two ( :cross and as the Quran clearly said the people were once one?
Problem?
Pharisees = John, Paul, Simon!!!

 

[James the Persian]

Are you still off the ciggys too? :cigar: Lax fasting? Great Lent? Are these specifically orthodox traditions? Do you just give up one thing you like for lent or is it a whole meal or all food?

Yes, I'm still off the cigarettes but this is rather off topic so I'll keep it brief. By lax fasting I mean that during Cheesefare Week we can eat anything but meat. The next level of strictness would be no meat or dairy, next no meat dairy or fish, and strict fasting (which will cover most of the time between now and Pascha - Easter) means vegan diet, no olive oil, no alcohol and generally smaller meals. Great Lent is so-called because it is the longest fast in the calendar, the next longest being the Nativity Lent (from mid-November until Christmas). It's also the strictest fast with virtually no days where it is relaxed (a few days are relaxed to allow fish, wine and oil). We have other fasting periods too, such as the Apostles' Fast and the Dormition Fast and almost every Wednesday and Friday in the year (as per the Didache) is a strict fast.

This year Pascha is unusually at the same time as western Easter but the reason we start earlier is that our 40 days run up to Good (Great, as we say) Friday rather than Easter Sunday, hence we start on Clean Monday rather than the Wednesday. Good Friday and the Saturday are a super strict fast for some (monastics mainly) and considered separate from Great Lent (as is Cheesefare Week). Lay people don't notice much difference, though, on the whole so far as food is concerned (Orthodox Liturgical days, by the way, follow the Jewish tradition of running from sunset to sunset, so we tend to break the fast directly after the Pascha service that takes place during the Saturday night.

Now everyone can return to discussing sola scriptura, the canon, etc.

James

 

[Scuba Pete]

Not so. Firstly, we have no head but Christ.

Google disagrees with you: http://www.google.com/search?q=head...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a That was amalagamated using "Head of Orthodox Church" as the search criteria. Jesus again did not make the first page.

Now probably the closest church to ME is still the church of Christ. So out of fairness I googled "Head of church of Christ" and got this: http://www.google.com/search?q=head...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a The first page reveals NOTHING BUT JESUS.

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.

Rules are rules. Doctrinally I reject all of the canons and councils, and Catholics (Orthodox or Roman) or Protestants embrace them. Both Catholics and Protestants embrace a National and/or World orginization. I do not. These are the important criteria for ME when I categorize churches. BTW, when my aunt was "excommunicated" for getting her tubes tied, she failed to see the "love" in those rules. So do I.

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.

Why is clarification considered "whining"? Where have I claimed any damages for being reckoned a sola scripturist or a protestant? Did you not point out that you were NOT Roman Catholic in this same thread? I don't think that was the first time for that, was it? Were you playing the martyr? Why do you take offense to me discussing this? Would you rather I just "go away" because my views are inconvenient?

 

[Scuba Pete]

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.

I actually might be coming around to accepting the Wiki version of the definition in that it states that you need no other BOOK than the Bible. As long as the Spirit's role in understanding the scriptures is maintained, then I have no real issue with it.

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.

You're excused! As for the Googling... I must say that this was an interesting find. Perhaps, the reality is different from what you were hoping for? Often we live by the river "Denial" when it comes to outside ovservations. It's best to step back and see why this is so. Look at the Googles in my previous post for some more reality checks.

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.

Actually, it was the "objections" that are making me think that I might be a sola scripturist! Do you have a Catholic wikipedia or the like that can give us the Catholic take on this?

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

Absolutely not! The Holy Spirit is always here. However, no two people ever believe precisely the same thing. I am sure that there are others who believe as I do but I have not found them yet. I take a rather "outside of the box" approach to the scriptures that most in the church of Christ would reject. Also, due to a sharp disagreement with most congregants about Haliburton's War, I have stopped attending the cofC. I have tried a number of congregations without finding one that "fits".





So your faith started with the Bible?[/quote]

 

[James the Persian]

Google disagrees with you: http://www.google.com/search?q=head+of+orthodox+church&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a That was amalagamated using "Head of Orthodox Church" as the search criteria. Jesus again did not make the first page.

Well, lo and behold, there are people out there who think that Patriarch Bartholomew is the head of my Church. Unbelievable. I've never seen that particular misinformation before, honestly. Are you really sure that you want to keep raising Google searches as proof of anything at all? This is a highly dishonest approach, intellectually speaking. You cannot possibly show me, an Orthodox Christian, that I misunderstand our ecclesiology by pointing out that outsiders misunderstand it. It just doesn't work like that. I'd also point out that most of your 'heads' from that search are the figureheads of local churches not of the Church and that the first two aren't even Orthodox - so much for he reliability of Google results, hey?

Now probably the closest church to ME is still the church of Christ. So out of fairness I googled "Head of church of Christ" and got this: http://www.google.com/search?q=head+of+church+of+Christ&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a The first page reveals NOTHING BUT JESUS.

I think we should probably just ignore your Google results evidence, no? Given how remarkably inaccurate it has proven so far, I mean.

Rules are rules. Doctrinally I reject all of the canons and councils, and Catholics (Orthodox or Roman) or Protestants embrace them. Both Catholics and Protestants embrace a National and/or World orginization. I do not. These are the important criteria for ME when I categorize churches.

Canons aren't rules, though, which was my point. Roman Catholics might have a tendency to see them as such but we do not and you cannot validly tar us with the brush of your bad experiences with Roman Catholicism. Our approach to the canons and theirs are quite different.

BTW, when my aunt was "excommunicated" for getting her tubes tied, she failed to see the "love" in those rules. So do I.

As do I, particularly if by excommunication you mean what we would call an anathema - being thrown out of the Church. My grandmother got the same treatment from Rome for marrying a Protestant. But that wouldn't happen with us. It just couldn't. At most there might be a temporary denial of the Eucharist for the person's own good. Anathemas are very, very rare indeed. Again, you seem to be assuming that because we have some similar terminology to Rome that we mean the same thing by it. We don't and before you criticise us you should first seek to understand, which you clearly do not.

Why is clarification considered "whining"? Where have I claimed any damages for being reckoned a sola scripturist or a protestant? Did you not point out that you were NOT Roman Catholic in this same thread? I don't think that was the first time for that, was it? Were you playing the martyr? Why do you take offense to me discussing this? Would you rather I just "go away" because my views are inconvenient?

Oh will you quit it? Are you being wilfully dense? I keep explaining the same thing and it's like talking to a brick wall. I have no issue with you clarifying what you believe and I never did - clarify away. The issue I have is with your 'stop labeling me', 'stop pigeon holing me comments', made despite the fact that nobody here did either. You appear to see the word Protestant in a thread and assume it's directed at you. I clarified my position and that is all. 'If by Catholic you mean RC...' is a very different response than 'Stop calling me Protestant...' Don't you see that? Nobody labeled you at all and yet you get in a huff about being labeled as Protestant. That's what I call playing the martyr - and you're still at it now.

James

 

[quietlight]

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

I do think we run the risk of straying off topic, but from about 400 AD (when most of the biblical related councils occured) until the reformation, the most widely accepted canon was certainly the one that the Catholic church put forward. Now that is not to say that some of the Orthodox religions and other flavors of Christianty didn't run with other canons, but wide acceptance among western Christianity was with the Roman canon.

Debating the differences and the causes of splits between the Eastern Church and Roman church is something that would be more fitting for another thread (and more research on my part - I have only touched on this subject in my reading). The point of this thread is to ask protestants, and those who believe that all the truth that is necessary to obtain salvation is contained within the bible, and who accept a certain biblical canon why they accept that canon and no other.

 

[quietlight]

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.

Fair enough. I understand your position on this.

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.

Huh...according to some protestants don't follow Sola Scriptura. You must be an anomoly.

I was thinking this morning about our conversation, and it dawned on me that we (specifically you and I) have not yet answered the question as to where you think the Bible came from. Why do you think the books that are in your Bible are in your Bible?

(sorry if this feels redundant...I easily get distracted by useless side points - it was only this morning that I realized that this important question had not yet been answered in our conversation)

 

[quietlight]

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.

You are correct and I mispoke to agree with this earlier. I had actually been taught that the principle council for dealing with the Biblical canon used in the Roman church was Hippo in 393, although I do know that other councils also dealt with the issue.

 

[quietlight]

You're excused! As for the Googling... I must say that this was an interesting find. Perhaps, the reality is different from what you were hoping for? Often we live by the river "Denial" when it comes to outside ovservations. It's best to step back and see why this is so. Look at the Googles in my previous post for some more reality checks.

Could it be that reality is different from what I was hoping for? Heaven help us if Google defines reality. Seriously, you lose any credibility you had by presenting Google results as an indication as to who is the head of any individual church.

Actually, it was the "objections" that are making me think that I might be a sola scripturist! Do you have a Catholic wikipedia or the like that can give us the Catholic take on this?

Its not a wikipedia (thank goodness), but you can always look to the Catechism.

Absolutely not! The Holy Spirit is always here. However, no two people ever believe precisely the same thing. I am sure that there are others who believe as I do but I have not found them yet. I take a rather "outside of the box" approach to the scriptures that most in the church of Christ would reject. Also, due to a sharp disagreement with most congregants about Haliburton's War, I have stopped attending the cofC. I have tried a number of congregations without finding one that "fits".

Do you honestly believe Christ would leave us to 'go it alone' in our spiritual journey? If we were truly intended to simply follow the Spirit, then why would the apostles confer with each other on matters of faith? Why would they continue to preach to Christian communities after their conversion?

Finally, you didn't answer my question: did your faith start with the Bible?

 

[James the Persian]

I do think we run the risk of straying off topic, but from about 400 AD (when most of the biblical related councils occured) until the reformation, the most widely accepted canon was certainly the one that the Catholic church put forward. Now that is not to say that some of the Orthodox religions and other flavors of Christianty didn't run with other canons, but wide acceptance among western Christianity was with the Roman canon.

Only in western Europe, i.e. the See of Rome. In 400 AD all the canons I mentioned were in use and the Greek (Orthodox) canon was the one used in most of the Sees of Pentarchy. After the See of Antioch replaced the Diatessaron with the four Gospels it was the canon used in 4 out of 5, although there is also the peculiar situation of Ethiopia even though its mother church was Alexandria (which used the Greek canon). It is certainly the case that until well post-Schism, the Latin canon used in the See of Rome was a minority canon, though that doesn't make it any less valid. Rome may have been the largest See but it was still much smaller than the other Sees put together, especially before the Arab invasions.

Debating the differences and the causes of splits between the Eastern Church and Roman church is something that would be more fitting for another thread (and more research on my part - I have only touched on this subject in my reading). The point of this thread is to ask protestants, and those who believe that all the truth that is necessary to obtain salvation is contained within the bible, and who accept a certain biblical canon why they accept that canon and no other.

In this respect I can see why you would want to focus on your canon to the exclusion of the rest - the Protestants are after all children of your See - but I merely wanted to correct what appeared to be a rather sweeping over-generalisation. The thing is, I could see there being a danger of you straying towards a view like 'You only have a Bible because of Rome' which, if taken, I would be compelled to oppose. I'm not saying you were definitely headed there - and I hope you were not - but I thought that some clarification on the facts of the development of the canon from when we were all one Church might help avoid that possibility.

James

 

[*Paul*]

Huh...according to some protestants don't follow Sola Scriptura. You must be an anomoly.

You do understand that I absolutey rely on scripture to settle all matters of faith and practice in the faith don't you. It is my authority. i only ask because a couple of comments have given me the impression that you may think otherwise.

I was thinking this morning about our conversation, and it dawned on me that we (specifically you and I) have not yet answered the question as to where you think the Bible came from. Why do you think the books that are in your Bible are in your Bible?

Why? Because the church is to be built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ as the head, for this to be possible we must have a record of their teachings, an authority. If we didn't have scripture and relied merely on oral teaching it would be much too easily challenged and perverted by those who wanted to draw away disciples after themselves. I keep hearing that the catholic church gave me my bible and then i hear that the protestants took some books out, if that is so then the protestant church gave me my bible in it's current form. It is our measuring rod of faith and practice.

How did Daniel know that Jeremiah was scripture? How did anyone know that the pentateuch was scripture without a catholic church to decide it for them?

 

[quietlight]

The thing is, I could see there being a danger of you straying towards a view like 'You only have a Bible because of Rome' which, if taken, I would be compelled to oppose. I'm not saying you were definitely headed there - and I hope you were not - but I thought that some clarification on the facts of the development of the canon from when we were all one Church might help avoid that possibility.

James

That would be tempting and easy to do, but that is not the point of my persistent (and probably annoying) questioning. My questioning is more pointed towards finding out on what authority most sola scripturists, or those who essentially believe in sola scriptura accept their canon (given that the Bible does not define a canon - it seems a contradiction to me).

As an aside, I think you and I could have a fascinating discussion on the history of the East/West Churches - the book that I list in my signature is not very kind to the Eastern churches at all. My understanding of this part of Church history is severely lacking and something I hope to learn more about in the coming years.

 

[James the Persian]

if that is so then the protestant church gave me my bible in it's current form. It is our measuring rod of faith and practice.

I quite agree with this. It's the only honest answer that can be given. The question I have (and it, to be honest - along with some of Luther's interesting views of the NT - was a major cause of my abandoning Protestantism), is who gave them the right, after 1500 years, to change Scripture? Surely the great Fathers who helped formulate the canon, such as St. Athanasios were in a better position to judge what was or was not inspired better than Luther or Calvin. And, of course, the writers of the NT overwhelmingly used the Septuagint for their OT quotes. How could anyone even consider suggesting that Luther et al knew better than the Evangelists and Apostles? It was asking questions like that that killed all possibility of my remaining Lutheran.

James

 

[Scuba Pete]

Could it be that reality is different from what I was hoping for? Heaven help us if Google defines reality. Seriously, you lose any credibility you had by presenting Google results as an indication as to who is the head of any individual church.

Well, it points right to the Pope. Do you not answer to the Pope?

Its not a wikipedia (thank goodness), but you can always look to the Catechism.

Is it online?

Do you honestly believe Christ would leave us to 'go it alone' in our spiritual journey? If we were truly intended to simply follow the Spirit, then why would the apostles confer with each other on matters of faith? Why would they continue to preach to Christian communities after their conversion?

Somehow, I don't think we have the same relationship to the Spirit. The Spirit is real and is at work in me. There is always a remnant that listens to the Spirit of God and one day I will find them.

Finally, you didn't answer my question: did your faith start with the Bible?

I did answer your question. My faith started when I saw a promise fulfilled, The promise? "They will know you are my disciples by the love you have for one another." The promise came from the scriptures and was fulfilled by disciples. When you see faith and love in action, it is truly a wonderful sight.

 

[quietlight]

You do understand that I absolutey rely on scripture to settle all matters of faith and practice in the faith don't you. It is my authority. i only ask because a couple of comments have given me the impression that you may think otherwise.

No, this was more directed at Scuba Pete who claimed that 'sola scriptura' is a term only used by the Catholic Church. Honestly, I shouldn't have said it. :sorry1:

Why? Because the church is to be built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ as the head, for this to be possible we must have a record of their teachings, an authority. If we didn't have scripture and relied merely on oral teaching it would be much too easily challenged and perverted by those who wanted to draw away disciples after themselves.

Absolutely. This is the exact same understanding that I have as well! Before the councils towards the end of the 4th century, the scriptures and teachings of the apostles were handed down orally (primarily). The councils towards the end of the 4th century found a need to define a canon that was indeed the inspired Word of God. As James points out so well, this is not something that was easily agreed upon and still has plenty of disagreements on until this day.

So how did the Roman church decide upon a canon of books which would make up the Bible? By Tradition. The Church had the teachings of the apostles through Tradition. Why was the Gospel of Thomas not included in the Canon? Because it did not agree with the deposit of faith that was left by the apostles.

I keep hearing that the catholic church gave me my bible and then i hear that the protestants took some books out, if that is so then the protestant church gave me my bible in it's current form. It is our measuring rod of faith and practice.

As I responded to James, I am not here to tell you that the Catholic Church gave you your Bible - obviously your version of the Bible would be considered to be 'lacking' in the eyes of the Church given the fact that you do not have all the books we have. Rather, I am here to find out on what authority the protestant church gave you your bible in its current form? The Catholic Church is able to rely on the Tradition that was handed to them directly from the Apostles who were given the original deposit of faith. What connection to the original deposit of faith did the major protestant reformers have to make their decisions that they would not agree with the Roman canon? Or was their choice to remove certain books simply in response to things they disagreed with the church on (as a protest against the church)?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Don't you see that? Nobody labeled you at all and yet you get in a huff about being labeled as Protestant. That's what I call playing the martyr - and you're still at it now.

No, again I am not the one who is getting huffy about being misunderstood. Here is someone who is:

We don't and before you criticise us you should first seek to understand, which you clearly do not.

Why do you think Google is so "confused" about the Orthodox church then?

 

[wizanda]

66 Books for most as well?

 

[quietlight]

Well, it points right to the Pope. Do you not answer to the Pope?

If you want to know who the head of the Catholic Church is, why don't you see who the Church teaches is the head of the Church (here's a hint: its not the pope).

Honestly, there are some assertions that are so outlandish and odd that they do not have a response. Using Google as your form of 'proof' falls into that category. I do a lot of work with the search engines and can tell you that Google results are anything but a reliable way to determine anything like this.

Is it online?

Yes. http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

If you insist on using Google results as a reliable way to determine what other faiths are about, then I don't think I can continue a conversation with you.