Bible Alone Discussion version 125.3(ish)

  • Thread starter Thread starter heisenburg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

heisenburg

Guest
**Read ENTIRE post before commenting as this is NOT the normal argument for/against Bible Alone **

There have been a number of threads lately about Bible Alone and it got me thinking…

If a protestant said “I do not believe in Bible Alone” are they in heresy in the protestant world?

If so, this means Bible Alone is a requirement for being Christian. However, no where does it say you must believe in Bible Alone for you to be a Christian, or ever even implied…

Now, people like to say Timothy says it is profitable, and thus implying that it is all we need for truth, but even if this was right, saying it is the only source of truth is different than saying it is required to believe in order to be a Christian… an Essential if you will…

so… the question is…

IF it is a heresy in the Protestant World to NOT believe bible alone, then were is it in the bible that bible alone is required in order to be a Christian…

If it is not found anywhere either explicitly or implicitly that you must believe Bible Alone in order to be considered a “true Christian”, then doesn’t the very premise of Bible alone violate itself sense that requirement is not in scripture and thus becomes an extra-biblical requirement?

I reiterate… this thread is not about if bible alone is or is not correct in the normal sense, I am discussing its value with relation to heresy…

In Christ
 
The more narrowly drawn your definition of orthodoxy is, the more likely you are to regard other people as heretical, and it is notable how often that word gets used on this forum. If you are a narrow minded Protestant, then all Catholics are heretical. If you are a narrow minded Catholic, then all Protestants are heretical.

God probably thinks we all leave an awful lot to be desired.
 
heisenburg said:
I reiterate… this thread is not about if bible alone is or is not correct in the normal sense, I am discussing its value with relation to heresy…

In Christ
Click to expand...
How would anyone decide what is or isn’t heresy without God’s word? I think it’s a safe bet that as far as God is concerned, we ought to seek truth from the source of truth, which is God. To be willing to accept other sources besides God (or His written word), as having authority equal to God, is extremely dangerous and dishonoring to God. A huge part of honoring God AS GOD is that we recognize His authority as supreme, and accept no other authority as equal to His.
 
However, your statement implies that the bible IS the only place where there is truth… something any faithful Catholic or Orthodox would disagree with you on…

Something I think is hard pressed to find in the bible as well

However, the purpose of this is not the validity of bible alone… but… is believing in bible alone a requirement for a Christian in protestant world…

If it is… where is it either explicitly, or implicitly

In Christ
 
heisenburg said:
However, your statement implies that the bible IS the only place where there is truth… something any faithful Catholic or Orthodox would disagree with you on…

Something I think is hard pressed to find in the bible as well

However, the purpose of this is not the validity of bible alone… but… is believing in bible alone a requirement for a Christian in protestant world…

If it is… where is it either explicitly, or implicitly

In Christ
Click to expand...
As I said, if you can find a suitably narrow minded Protestant, and undoubtedly there are some, he will tell you that anybody who doesn’t think precisely as he thinks (sola scriptura) is a heretic. But it all depends which Protestant you ask.
 
But it all depends which Protestant you ask.
Click to expand...
a statement I very much agree with… perhaps such a thread is not good as there are so many varying points of view in Protestantism…

In Christ
 
Protestants are in a very difficult position in regards to heresy.Protestants rejected the very apparatus by which heresy can be defined,the office of Pope. The Church came before the canon,the Church defined the canon,the Church there fore must be of equal or higher authority than Scripture.For crying out loud, the Church even wrote the Scripures.Sola Scriptura doesn’t hold water on it’s face.
 
sawman said:
Protestants are in a very difficult position in regards to heresy.Protestants rejected the very apparatus by which heresy can be defined,the office of Pope. The Church came before the canon,the Church defined the canon,the Church there fore must be of equal or higher authority than Scripture.For crying out loud, the Church even wrote the Scripures.Sola Scriptura doesn’t hold water on it’s face.
Click to expand...
Can you prove all of these assertions in a non-circular manner? And if not, can you at least show us how we are able to recognize the one true church without being utterly dependent upon Scripture?
 
heisenburg said:
However, your statement implies that the bible IS the only place where there is truth… something any faithful Catholic or Orthodox would disagree with you on…

Something I think is hard pressed to find in the bible as well

However, the purpose of this is not the validity of bible alone… but… is believing in bible alone a requirement for a Christian in protestant world…

If it is… where is it either explicitly, or implicitly

In Christ
Click to expand...
I haven’t said that the bible is the ONLY source for truth, I’m saying that the bible should be our supreme authority on all matters that it deals with. On other matters not dealt with in Scripture, we have some freedom.
 
sawman said:
Protestants rejected the very apparatus by which heresy can be defined,the office of Pope.
Click to expand...
actually, they would say it is the entire church coming together and agreeing that is the litmus test for heresy. that is why every protestant (i’m sure you could find some fringe group like oneness pentecostals, but most of us would say they aren’t Christians because they don’t believe in the trinity) ascribes to the apostle’s creed and the nicene creed. most would agree with chalcedon as well. and constantinople. they would go all the way up and stop before trent because by that time the church was too fractured to be able to correctly identify heresy. to protestants, there really isn’t heresy, just different interpretations. my interpretation is just as valid as yours sort of attitude. but (and i think the practice of the church until the great schism shows this) the apparatus for defining heresy was church councils, not the pope.
 
Nick_Jones said:
Can you prove all of these assertions in a non-circular manner? And if not, can you at least show us how we are able to recognize the one true church without being utterly dependent upon Scripture?
Click to expand...
Dear Nick Jones,
I don’t know what you would accept as proof,but the historical record is plain.Jesus established His Church.It was the Church that tought and preached the Gospel for several decades before any of the New Testament was written.Several churches (local communities) had been established in various cities around the empire.The Apostles were the bearers of the Good News,and those whom they deputised after them.The bishops of the early Church were extremley careful about the content of their preaching,it had to conform to what been handed down.Rome very early on became a prominent center for the Church and the bishop of Rome was known and accepted as the head of the Church,the Pope.The canon of Scripture wasn’t set until 1546 Council of Trent.Earlier Councils had been involved in the proccess of collecting the various books into the canon,as early as 390’s.Anyway,the one true Church is determined by Apostolic succesion,primarily.
 
to you in Christ Nick…
I’m saying that the bible should be our supreme authority on all matters that it deals with
Click to expand...
and I am not flaming…

If this is the case, why does the bible say go to the Church if there is a disagreement… or that the Church is the bulwark of truth…

Not Scripture…

The closest scripture comes is in Timothy, but even here… all it says is that it is profitable…

A Drivers manual is profitable for learning how to drive… but it’s not all you need. You also need a teacher to show you how to drive… a drivers license, a car…

Anyway… I understand that this a protestant belief… and I think a great deal of good has still come out of it even though i disagree with it…

But it just doesn’t seem to be in scripture

With humble respect

In Christ
 
bengal_fan said:
actually, they would say it is the entire church coming together and agreeing that is the litmus test for heresy. that is why every protestant (i’m sure you could find some fringe group like oneness pentecostals, but most of us would say they aren’t Christians because they don’t believe in the trinity) ascribes to the apostle’s creed and the nicene creed. most would agree with chalcedon as well. and constantinople. they would go all the way up and stop before trent because by that time the church was too fractured to be able to correctly identify heresy. to protestants, there really isn’t heresy, just different interpretations. my interpretation is just as valid as yours sort of attitude. but (and i think the practice of the church until the great schism shows this) the apparatus for defining heresy was church councils, not the pope.
Click to expand...
Dear Bengal-fan,
I guess I should have said it better.What I was refering to was the Authority of the Church.Protestants rejected the living Authority of the Church for what?what they have in effect is no authority on scripture or any thing else.
 
heisenburg said:
If a protestant said “I do not believe in Bible Alone” are they in heresy in the protestant world?
Click to expand...
The problem with this question is of course the huge disparity among protestant denominations. There is no such thing as being a heretic to the “protestant world”. For many types of protestants there is no such thing as being a heretic at all.

I would imagine (and I’m speaking from a non denominational/Baptist background) that the only way to get even close to being considered a “heretic” would be if you said that the Bible was just plain wrong. Otherwise, if you could defend your belief from the Bible somehow you were generally considered alright in my former church.
 
Code: 
  			Originally Posted by **heisenburg** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3419762#post3419762)
If a protestant said “I do not believe in Bible Alone” are they in heresy in the protestant world?
Click to expand...
If it was a heresy, then a HUGE portion of protestants would be heretics.
 
heisenburg said:
Read ENTIRE post before commenting as this is NOT the normal argument for/against Bible Alone

There have been a number of threads lately about Bible Alone and it got me thinking…

If a protestant said “I do not believe in Bible Alone” are they in heresy in the protestant world?
Click to expand...
First of all there is no ecclesiastical organization “Protestant”. Therefore it is impossible to be in heresy in relationship to a non-existent organization.

One can be in heresy in relationship to their denomination, however that is up to the denomination to figure out. But that brings me to a second point.
heisenburg said:
If so, this means Bible Alone is a requirement for being Christian. However, no where does it say you must believe in Bible Alone for you to be a Christian, or ever even implied…
Click to expand...
The second misunderstanding would be that just because Christian ‘A’ does not believe a tenet of faith the organization ‘B’ holds, it does not mean that Christian ‘A’ is not saved in relationship to organization ‘B’. It does not even mean that Christian ‘A’ is heretical in relationship to organization ‘B’.

For example Assembly of God is a denomination that holds a number of Pentecostal distinctives (Baptism of the Holy Spirit, Divine Healing, etc). However, Assembly of God would not say that your Baptist Church down the street that does not hold these distinctives is heretical, much less unsaved. The Assembly of God church would just acknowledge that they disagree with the Baptist church and move on. In fact if the community is like my community, chances are the Assembly of God and Baptist churches get along quite well.
 
To Mozart and Syele and everyone else who has pointed out the problem with this thread…

I simply want to say that your criticism of this particular thread is accurate… Several posts back, i indicated that this was perhaps not a good thread as I do not believe I thought it out very well…

regardless of the legitimacy or lack of legitimacy of Bible Alone, there is no way for this thread produce anything but ill will as the subject inadvertently flames a little.

I have no complain on continuing down the path of a normal Bible Alone thread… but the original post paints too broad a swap… and thus is not good for discussion…

For making broad assumptions… I humbly apologize…

In Christ
 
Hey Heisenberg

No problem. In fact you now have gained my respect.🙂
 
Thanks to all who contributed to this discussion.
This thread is now closed.
MF
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top