Bible Alone and what does it really mean?

[joshua_b]

I’m not assuming, but basing it on a Catholic Bible. At the time that the gospels were written, they were the inspired Word of God whether or not the Church accepted it at that time. Did the Church accepting the word of God as inspired make it any less inspired? Of course not! It would also be reasonable to think that Paul heard of a lot of the teachings of Christ that were recorded in the Bible. Scripture alone may very well be all that we need. Now certain other writings help us understand and put things in proper context, but all we need is the scriptures.

The word tradition (Greek paradosis) in the ecclesiastical sense, which is the only one in which it is used here, refers sometimes to the thing (doctrine, account, or custom) transmitted from one generation to another; sometimes to the organ or mode of the transmission.

Now that being the case and Paul having lived during most of the ministry of Jesus, how could Jesus’ teachings be tradition unless they were rooted in the OT, such as Passover and the Sabbath. Christianity gets its roots from Judaism. The more you read the OT, the more you understand the parallel and linkage between the OT and NT.

I think we may be talking past each other. I would concur that the inspired Scriptures were inspired from the time they were first written. But there were other writings composed of the same time period, which were used in the exact same manner as what we now accept as inspired Scripture, which were deemed later to be uninspired. My point was that there is no evidence to suggest that the canon of Scripture just formed itself and was agreed upon by most of Christianity independent of and prior to the declaration of the Church. The canon of Scripture was a heated topic (Revelation is the most glaring example of that…I wonder how many Protestants who claim this “generally accepted canon” theory know how close Revelation was to being excluded from their Bible).

As far as saying “scripture alone may be all that we need”, I would disagree with that too. From a Catholic point of view, Jesus IS the Word of God, the fullness of Truth, and He gave His Church the fullness of God’s revelation. The Bible (to a Catholic) contains a great deal of the Truth Jesus revealed to us, but there is nothing contained within Scripture or in any ancient writings to support the notion that the Scriptures are the totality of God’s revelation to mankind.

To state the Bible is all we need (from a Catholic perspective) is to state that we don’t need the sum total of ALL of God’s revelation to us, we only need the part that was written down after the fact. I don’t offer this in hopes that you or anyone else agrees with me, so much as just to attempt to get you to see things from the Catholic perspective. Anyway, I digress…

Sorry to all for taking the thread off track.

 

[Fidelis]

With respect to sufficiency of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3, it is conveyed by looking at the verses preceeding and follow verse 16 which you quoted.

You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:14-17)

2 Tim. 3:16 says that Scripture is “profitable” for every good work, but not exclusive. The word “profitable” is “ophelimos” in Greek. “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

Further, the verse “all Scripture” uses the words “pasa graphe” which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of “pasa graphe” would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use “sola Matthew,” or “sola Mark,” but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God’s word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, “pasa graphe” cannot mean “all of Scripture” because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

Interestingly, Paul’s reference to the “man of God” who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. 2 Timothy is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is, arguably, not even relevant to most of the faithful!

Finally, Paul’s use of the word “complete” for every good work is “artios” which simply means the clergy is “suitable” or “fit.” Also, *artios *does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

Consider also these verses:

And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.(James 1:4)

The saying is sure. I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds; these are excellent and profitable to men. (Titus 3:8)

If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work. (2 Tim 2:21)

James 1:4 - “steadfastness” also makes a man “perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing.” This verse is important because "teleioi"and “holoklepoi” are much stronger words than “artios,” but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also “profitable” to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean “exclusive” here.

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for “any good work” (“pan ergon agathon”). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

Using your own reasoning, either steadfastness, good works, or purity (not to mention the scriptures) should all, individually be sufficient. Are they?

 

[shawn34_a]

I think we may be talking past each other. My point was that there is no evidence to suggest that the canon of Scripture just formed itself and was agreed upon by most of Christianity independent of and prior to the declaration of the Church.

The Bible (to a Catholic) contains a great deal of the Truth Jesus revealed to us, but there is nothing contained within Scripture or in any ancient writings to support the notion that the Scriptures are the totality of God’s revelation to mankind.

Sorry to all for taking the thread off track.

The Bible can stand alone. However other writings help place things in proper context for their time that the Bible doesn’t reference. The Bible may not mention the importance of sandals or one’s robe. Now using other materials to understand their significance clarifies their importance, but is not necessary to the text nor does it change its meaning.

Prima scriptura accepts canonized scripture foremost, but implies that their are other guides for what a believer should believe and how we should live. This is the Catholic perspective. I disagree with this notion. We are called to be disciples of Christ. To do so is to live according to Christ’s teachings which is laid out for us in the Bible. Obviously we’re to live out the literal interpretation being that which the author intended to mean whether literally or figuratively.

 

[joshua_b]

The Bible can stand alone.

Where do you get this from, because the Bible doesn’t tell us such.

The Bible may not mention the importance of sandals or one’s robe. Now using other materials to understand their significance clarifies their importance, but is not necessary to the text nor does it change its meaning.

Actually, using other materials to draw an understanding can change the meaning of a passage ENTIRELY. I respectfully disagree with this.

Prima scriptura accepts canonized scripture foremost, but implies that their are other guides for what a believer should believe and how we should live. This is the Catholic perspective.

That is not entirely accurate. I’m not ignoring you, but to give a complete answer to the Catholic perspective would be too lengthy and peripheral to the topic of this thread. If you want a good discussion that would do this topic justice, then it should be dealt with on a separate thread.

I disagree with this notion. We are called to be disciples of Christ. To do so is to live according to Christ’s teachings which is laid out for us in the Bible.

You are, of course, free to disagree with anything, and so long as you support it intelligently and respectfully (which so far you have) then I do not begrudge you that right. However…Who or what says it has to be “laid out for us in the Bible”? I am in agreement that we are to live according to Christ’s teachings, but where do you get the notion that the Bible contains the totality of Christ’s teachings, because the Bible does not make that claim, which is a real problem if one is to claim “Bible alone”.

Obviously we’re to live out the literal interpretation being that which the author intended to mean whether literally or figuratively.

If I understand you correctly, then we are in agreement on this completely. The Bible is inerrant and should be followed. What the Bible actually SAYS at times can be the start of a neverending and irreconcilable debate, but the interpretation of any passages is not in the scope of this thread

 

[Contarini]

Ok if you read the book, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, then you would know that original reformers, accepted the first eight ecumenical councils as authoritive.

If that’s what Mathison said, he is wrong. Calvin, for instance, sharply criticizes the Second Council of Nicea. It was more common to accept the first four Councils.

Edwin

 

[truthnlight]

In John 7:37-39, Christ speaks of the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit that will be imparted to all who believe on Him. No mention there of baptism, nor is there a mention of limiting that power to the benefit of only those within a particular assembly. In fact, it should be borne in mind that there was NO Christian church when Jesus made this statement.

In John 14:16,17, Messiah promises that the Father will send the Holy Spirit to indwell those who believe. Again, He makes no mention that only those who believe and are members of a Magisterium are to be hosts for the indwelling Spirit.

 

[truthnlight]

Ok if you read the book, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, then you would know that original reformers, accepted the first eight ecumenical councils as authoritive. That reformers like Luther and Calvin were Christian Humanists who studied the church fathers, history, culture and biblical languages. If you study a movement called the “Chrisitan Connection” in american history. You will see that “sola scriptura” was redefined as the Bible Alone is the sole source of authority for the believer. This thread is about the modern american definition of Bible Alone that is being discussed in this thread.

Is that definition biblical?

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

In context, all scripture only refers to the OT which Timothy learned as a child.

1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

It was the church as the “pillar and foundation of the truth” that determined the NT cannon which was done in council around 399 AD, about 75 years after Nicea.

For the first 40 years or so, the church had NO written NT, all was oral until the letters, were written, and then the gospels. The appostles taught doctrine to those that replaced them. This doctrine is recored in the church fathers.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

If the Holy Spirit could inspire some of the Scripture, why not believe that he could inspire it all?

 

[Church_Militant]

If the Holy Spirit could inspire some of the Scripture, why not believe that he could inspire it all?

If this is true, then what does that tell you about the fact that the apostles use traditional sources in their inspired writings? Catholic Tradition Discussion.

 

[truthnlight]

Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: The bible must be invention eather of good men or angels, bad men or devils,or of God.

1. It could not be the invention of good men or angles; for they neither would nor could make a book and tell lies all the time they were writing it.God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar…"

2 It could not be of bad men or devils; they would not make a book that forbids all sin and condemns their soul to hellto all eterinity.

3 Therefore the Bible must be given by divine inspiration.

 

[Harland]

2 Thess 2:13But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Here the word gospel is singular. Aren’t there 4 gospels? Doesn’t gospel mean good news? So couldn’t it just as easily say, which He called you by our good news for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Well what exactly did Paul Preach? The gospel!

1 Corinthians 15:1Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

Same thing in Colossians but was initially preached to them by Epaphras.

Paul uses the word to refer to knowledge that had been “hidden from the ages and generations” , but now is being revealed by God. The Lord revealed this mystery to Paul. The mystery is that Christ now lives within Gentile believers (Eph 3:6).

Eph 3:4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,

Paul carried on the suffering that Jesus would have endured had He lived in the world. Paul believed that the persecution that he was suffering was what God wanted him to endure.

John 15:19If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also.
2 Cor 1:5For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also abounds through Christ. 6Now if we are afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effective for enduring the same sufferings which we also suffer.
4:11For we who live are always delivered to death for Jesus’ sake, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh.

Paul said, “fulness of the word of God” Not just “fulness of the gospel”. I would take what Paul meant to be fulness of all doctrine. Where does Paul say that he wrote down the fullness of the word of God? or the Fullness of all doctrine?

And, if you contend that he wrote down the fullness of all doctrine, then why is not the New Testament plain enough, not to have contradictory interpretations of doctrine? One groups says, speaking in tongues is proof of salvation and that if you don’t speak in tongues you are not saved ( pentecostals ), another group says that tongues is not for today at all ( cessionists ), another group says that speaking in tongues is just one of the spiritual gifts ( charismatics ). One group says that today we only speak in tongues of angels, another group says we must speak only in human languages. I could go on about contradictory interpretations for pages.

Where in scripture, old testament that is do you find the festival of lights?

factmonster.com/spot/hanukkah.html

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

If that’s what Mathison said, he is wrong. Calvin, for instance, sharply criticizes the Second Council of Nicea. It was more common to accept the first four Councils.

Edwin

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I think Mathison, may have indicated that some protestants accept the first ( 4 or ) 6 to 8 councils, so I overstated his position eariler out of poor memory. As I recall, Calvin accepted communion of the saints, but rejected icons, images, etc of them.

Advanced Information
(787)

The Second Council of Nicaea was the seventh ecumenical council provided the climax (though not yet the end) of the iconoclastic controversy by decisively authorizing the veneration of images of various sorts but especially those of Christ, Mary, the holy angels, and the saints. The controversy had begun when the emperors Leo III (beginning in 725) and his son after him, Constantine V, tried to abruptly end the practice of worshiping images, which had been growing in the church for over three centuries. This seems to have been partly in response to the threat of Islam, which attributed its success to an unidolatrous monotheism. Constantine V convened a council in 754 that rendered an iconoclastic definitio based on the second commandment, the earliest fathers, and the concern that images were attempts to circumscribe the divine nature.

These actions were opposed by certain influential figures in the East, including Germanus of Constantinople and John of Damascus, and also by the Roman popes Gregory II, Gregory III, and Hadrian I. After the death of Constantine V his wife, Irene, reversed his policies while acting as regent for their son, Leo IV (whom she later murdered). She convened the council which met at Nicaea in 787, attended by over three hundred bishops. At this council the iconoclasts were anathematized and the worship of images upheld. But a distinction was drawn between worship defined as proskynesis, which was to be given to images or rather more properly through the images to their prototypes, and worship defined as latria, which was to be given to God alone. The authority for image worship was considered to be the worship of the angel of the Lord in the OT and the incarnate Christ in the NT, the teaching and practice of the latter fathers, and the practice of venerating Mary and the saints that had become so established that not even the iconoclasts opposed it (they only opposed the worship of their images). Despite a brief outbreak of iconoclasm, the position of this council became standard orthodoxy in Greek and Roman churches.

**The distinction between proskynesis and latria, or, as later put in the West, between dulia and latria, is so fine as to be imperceptible in common practice. As Calvin argued, the biblical usage of the words certainly does not recognize the distinction that Nicaea attempted to establish. Thus the Reformation rejected the decision of this council as encouraging idolatry. **

C A Blaising
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

mb-soft.com/believe/txc/nicaea.htm

Calvin’s Conception of the “Communio Sanctorum”
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-6407%28193609%295%3A3%3C227%3ACCOT%22S%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

1. Two divisions. First, Personal holiness. 1. Because God is holy. 2. Because of our communion with his saints.

godrules.net/library/calvin/calvin_iv_iii_vii.htm

CHAPTER - CALVIN AT POITIERS, AT THE BASSES-TRELLES, AND IN ST. BENEDICT’S CAVES.
… Margaret and some of his hearers at Gerac desired to retain, were displeasing to the reformer. Altars, images, holidays dedicated to Mary and the saints, confessors and confession — none of these things appeared to him scriptural, and he sighed for the time when he could make the evangelical principle …
godrules.net/library/calvin/76calvin_c10.htm 08/07/04, 37747 bytes

godrules.net/cgi-bin/htsearch?restrict=%2Fcalvin%2F;exclude=;config=htdig7;method=and;format=builtin-long;sort=score;matchesperpage=10;words=communion%20saints;page=5

1. The Church is regarded in two points of view; as Invisible and Universal, which is the communion of saints; and as Visible and Particular. The Church is discerned by the pure preaching of the word, and by the lawful administration of the sacraments.

godrules.net/library/calvin/calvin_v_iv.htm

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

If this is true, then what does that tell you about the fact that the apostles use traditional sources in their inspired writings? Catholic Tradition Discussion.

Are you referring to the fact that Paul quotes a pagan philospher? That Jude employes the book of Enoch, and the Assumption of Moses? If so, in the first case the philospher made a true statement, in the second case those books included truths, text that were inspired of God.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

If the Holy Spirit could inspire some of the Scripture, why not believe that he could inspire it all?

Inspiration is not the subject of this thread. We all agree that the NT is inspired of God.

The subject is does the Bible Alone contain the only source of truth for the christian?

The fact that one admits that the Holy Spirit guides us refutes Bible Alone, because the Holy Spirit becomes another guide for truth.

Example of morals outside the Bible that is directly addressed by the church fathers is abortion. The Bible contains principles that can be applied to the topic, but the Bible does not directly address abortion, which the Fathers do directly address it which would make them another source of chrisitan morals, truth.

Also, there is the spiritual gift of teaching which becomes another source of truth for the Christian – and yes, I have had teachers who have taught truth without even quoting the bible. Poems like “footsteps in the sand”, “the log away from the fire goes out”, etc.,

Christian hymns are also another source of truth. Yes, they are based on chrisitian princpiles, but they are a source of truth.

Another source of truth is called “natural revelation” which also is not the Bible Alone.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: The bible must be invention eather of good men or angels, bad men or devils,or of God.

1. It could not be the invention of good men or angles; for they neither would nor could make a book and tell lies all the time they were writing it.God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar…"

2 It could not be of bad men or devils; they would not make a book that forbids all sin and condemns their soul to hellto all eterinity.

3 Therefore the Bible must be given by divine inspiration.

Again, inspiration of the scriptures is NOT the topic. We all agree to my knowledge that the NT is inspired of God. But, so is Paul’s oral teachings. The apostles taught those whom replaced them. And, those men wrote down christian doctrine, morals that reflects apostlic teachings.

The topic is, is the Bible the only source of truth for the christian?

We all agree on Psalms 119, that scripture is a light to our path. But, is it the only light?

that is the question being discussed.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Here the word gospel is singular. Aren’t there 4 gospels? Doesn’t gospel mean good news? So couldn’t it just as easily say, which He called you by our good news for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Does the four gospels ( editions ) contain all that Jesus did and taught? or do they contain some of what he did and taught?

Does the NT contain all that the apostles taught? And, is that teaching clear enough that anyone siting down to read the NT can understand fully its meaning without differing on what a text means?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Also, where does it say that Paul wrote down everything he taught? Paul taught the fullness of the word of God. Where does it say that fullness of the word of God is limited to just the gospel?

 

[mozart-250]

The fact that one admits that the Holy Spirit guides us refutes Bible Alone, because the Holy Spirit becomes another guide for truth.

Umm…you are making up your own definition for “Bible Alone” (Bible Alone is undefined since it is not even a complete sentence) and then knocking down your definition. I think the name for that is “strawman”.

Other than that carry on.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Ok, if the Holy Spirit is teaching you truth, is he authoritive or not?

Bible Alone, is the claim that only the Bible is authoritive for christian truth.

If that is NOT the simple definition of Bible Alone, then maybe you should enlighten us.

Please, define what “Bible Alone” means from an AUTHORITIVE sources. I find that I can google on the words “bible alone” and come up with many definitions.

The term “sola Scriptura” or “the Bible alone” is a short phrase that represents the simple truth that there is **only one special revelation **from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible.

christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html

If the Holy Spirit is teaching you, is that not a special revelation?

The “Bible Alone”: How Does That Work?

The Challenge:

Your Protestant friend contends that the Bible is the only source of Christian truth and asks you to show him in Scripture the supporting references for your Catholic beliefs. Since Catholicism is solidly biblical, your first instinct is to plunge ahead. But then you’d be accepting his premise that all truth must be found explicitly and only in Scripture. The real issue with is whether or not his assumption is correct. You begin by asking just how the “Bible alone” method works, inviting him to examine whether or not it is reliable in bringing him to the sure knowledge of the truth.

The Questions:

Can I ask you just what do you mean when you say you believe in the “Bible alone”?

Doesn’t someone have to interpret the Bible to determine what it means, even if it’s only the person reading it? Doesn’t that compromise the purity of the Bible’s message?

To understand the meaning of Bible texts, don’t you listen to sermons, participate in Bible studies, and read Christian books?

Are those sources Scripture? Do the pastors, Bible teachers, and authors guarantee that their interpretations are free from error?

Without that guarantee, isn’t it true that there’s no way to tell for sure if you’ve been given the correct interpretation?

If you can’t know the truth with certitude by using the Bible alone, how can the Bible possibly be enough?

Do you know what renowned Protestant pastor A. W. Tozer said on this subject? He said, “I suppose more people would like me to declare that I preach the Bible and nothing but the Bible. I attempt to do that, but honesty compels me to say that the best I can do is to preach the Bible as I understand it” (The Tozer Pulpit, vol. 2, Christian Publications, Camp Hill, PA, [1994], 10–11).

Do you know what Pastor Tozer wished he had to insure that he’d come to the right understanding of Scripture? He would liked to have heard from “one of the apostles or any of the great early fathers of the church” (ibid., 9).

Do you think that the apostles’ interpretation of Scripture would be reliable? More reliable than your pastor’s? Would you accept the apostolic teaching on scriptural topics like baptism and Communion if it were possible to know it?

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0110fea3.asp

users.stargate.net/~elcore/BibleOnlyVersesNot.htm

B. Sola Scriptura means:

The Bible alone without creeds. (ie Apostles creed, Nicene creed.)
The Bible alone without councils. (ie Ecumenical Councils.)
The Bible alone without church canons. (ie Canons of Dort.)
The Bible alone without statements of faith. (most churches create one.)
The Bible alone without oral tradition. (unless it is found in the Bible.)
The Bible alone without church tradition. (unless it is found in the Bible.)
The Bible alone without a “church interpreter”. (Catholic, Orthodox, Jehovah’s Witnesses all say only the church can correctly interpret the Bible, not the individual.)
**The Bible alone without individual illumination of the Holy Spirit. **(Evangelicals, Baptists, Charismatics and Calvinists believe they are personally guided by the Holy Spirit to correctly interpret the Bible.)
The Bible alone without modern day prophecy and inspiration. (Pentecostal, Charismatic and most of the 19th century cults, (Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists) all claimed to have living prophets.)

bible.ca/sola-scriptura-start.htm

google.com/search?hl=en&q=Bible+Alone+define

google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Bible+Alone+authoritative&spell=1

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Before this thread goes on, I think this needs to be answered,

Please, define what “Bible Alone” means from an AUTHORITIVE sources.