Bible Alone?

[SDA2RC]

Sola Scriptora does not mean that every individual is a teacher and that they can interpret the bible any way they wish. What it does is that it places the scripture as the foundation in which everything is measured, so that not one person can claim that their view is infallible.<<

This makes no sense to me. Scripture cannot be a foundation without someone reading it and interpreting it. Therefore, it cannot be a “measure” for any one without that one interpreting it as they wish or see fit. The practial implications of Sola Scriptura are that everyone does exactly that… they interpret it as they wish… who is to tell them they are wrong? Another person or group who have interpreted it as they wish?

Brandon

 

[Shibboleth]

SDA2RC:

they interpret it as they wish… who is to tell them they are wrong? Another person or group who have interpreted it as they wish?

Brandon

“They wish” is not quite the right way to put it. The interpretations are based on careful study and research and cannot be unfounded. If an archeological discovery is made that uncovers a more accurate translation then the current interpretations are amendable. If someone has done an infallible interpretation that cannot really be the case. Although it has happened in the Catholic Church as someone has pointed out above.

You are right in pointing out something though; in “Sola Scriptora’s” strength there is also weakness. People do interpret the Bible differently, hence all of the denominations. But that I believe is God’s wish. We cannot hope to understand God even if we had a million page perfectly translated Bible. When we attempt as humans to raise ourselves to a Godly level by saying that we understand him infallibly then we are guilty of the same sins as those that attempted to build the Tower of Babel.

When God saw the Tower of Babel he destroyed it and scattered his people putting language and distance between us to confuse. He does not wish for us to understand him infallibly, just to the best of our ability.

 

[SDA2RC]

“They wish” is not quite the right way to put it. The interpretations are based on careful study and research and cannot be unfounded.<<

In some cases yes… in many cases no… especially when often protestant “interpretations” are in direct contradiction of each other.

But that I believe is God’s wish. We cannot hope to understand God even if we had a million page perfectly translated Bible.<<

I agree that we could not understand God, however, I strongly disagree with your statemetn that all the different “interpretations” are “God’s wish”. Many are completely opposed to each other. Scripture states that he wants us to be “one”…ie unified. Not in race and langauge as at the tower of Babel, but in faith and morals.

If God would not have wanted us know know the one truth, he would not have established a church with the charge to be the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”. Nor would he have established offices in the church to protect us from being “tossed about by every wind of doctrine.” I believe that God explicitly setup safegaurds in the Church so that we would not have so many different interpretations… and if we did… we could go to one place to find out who is right.

Brandon

 

[srkbdk]

“They wish” is not quite the right way to put it. The interpretations are based on careful study and research and cannot be unfounded. If an archeological discovery is made that uncovers a more accurate translation then the current interpretations are amendable. If someone has done an infallible interpretation that cannot really be the case. Although it has happened in the Catholic Church as someone has pointed out above.

You are right in pointing out something though; in “Sola Scriptora’s” strength there is also weakness. People do interpret the Bible differently, hence all of the denominations. But that I believe is God’s wish. We cannot hope to understand God even if we had a million page perfectly translated Bible. When we attempt as humans to raise ourselves to a Godly level by saying that we understand him infallibly then we are guilty of the same sins as those that attempted to build the Tower of Babel.

When God saw the Tower of Babel he destroyed it and scattered his people putting language and distance between us to confuse. He does not wish for us to understand him infallibly, just to the best of our ability.

I am curious to see you expand on the point of God wanting all these divisions. I do not see where you can defend that from the Bible. Remember our Lord prayed that all would be one. Informed us there would be false teachers. Warned that we could read the Bible to our own distruction and set a authority in place to avoid the confusion.

Another problem I have is this show me a Christian Church that has not changed its mind in the last 1900 years (sorry you cant as there was only the Catholic Church) lets say in the last 150 years. Lets pick an easy topic Birth Control, or say Marriage. (now we need to talk about the faith and morals side of this discussion) The Catholic Church teachs as she always has and always will (not by men but through God).

 

[Little_Mary]

Randell:

Great point here…this is a great topic.

I get into these conversations all the time with people of other faiths. They ask me how I could follow a POPE there is no mention of the word POPE in the Bible. I say how could you follow
the Bible…there is no mention of the word BIBLE in the Bible.

I look forward to reading the rest of this discussion.

Very good. I agree. Not only is the word Bible not in the Bible, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible alone is the sole basis of faith. The Bible does, however, state that the Church is the pillar and foundation of faith.

…this thread also discusses Sunday worship. I might point out that nowhere in the Bible does it say that one must attend Wednesday night worship services. Or did I overlook it?

 

[Little_Mary]

srkbdk:

…Another problem I have is this show me a Christian Church that has not changed its mind in the last 1900 years (sorry you cant as there was only the Catholic Church) …

I would like to add to this by pointing out, and correct me if I am wrong, but not only has the Catholic Church been around for 2,000 years, but one must also remember that the Bible was not even compiled/finalized (written and compiled by Catholics

) until about 400 years after Christ’s death. After that, there were very few (no printing presses) - so members of the general public went without a Bible for another thousand or so years. My point is that the Church certainly played a big part in spreading and maintaining Christianity long before the Bible became accessible to people.

 

[martino]

There is really only one question that needs to be asked of a Protestant touting sola scriptura; how do you know what is or isnt Scripture?

Watch them squirm because, unless they are prepared to surrender authority to the Catholic Church, there is no Protestant answer to that question.

 

[Carl]

Well, here’s yet another reason for Protestants to squirm:

If they believe the Bible alone is the source of true Christian faith, they have to believe that there was no Christian faith in the world between the time the canon was created by the Catholic Church and the time of Luther. For over a thousand years there was no true faith because the Catholic translations were all corrupt until Luther came along in Germany and the King James version came along in England.

How does this square with Christ’s promise to Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church?

Moreover, the charge that Catholics kept the Bible from the people is absurd. It was a Catholic who invented the printing press that made possible the widest distribution of the Bible to all people.

 

[bobebob]

Carl:

If they believe the Bible alone is the source of true Christian faith, they have to believe that there was no Christian faith in the world between the time the canon was created by the Catholic Church and the time of Luther. For over a thousand years there was no true faith because the Catholic translations were all corrupt until Luther came along in Germany and the King James version came along in England.

During that time there were a group of people called the Waldenses that hid in the mountains(in north germany i believe). They believed in The Bible Alone for hundreds of years.

 

[Jim_B]

Dear bobebob,

If you can find a reference that substantiates your claim, list it.
Here are three independent references which contradict your claim.

*This Is the Faith, *Canon Francis Ripley, 1951
*Church History, *Father John Laux, 1930
Triumph, Harry Crocker III, 2001

To make a long story short, Germanic tribes like the Goths terrorized and attacked Christendom from the 5th century into 15th century. They would hardly be the ones who ‘preserved the faith by the bible alone’.
Whoever misinformed you about tribes living in caves for centuries who are the real Christians may have been misled by some other author who has ‘rewritten history’ , which seems to be in vogue these days.

On a more ecumenical note, the Lutheran Church and Catholic Church engaged in a fruitful dialog these past 10 years and did manage to co-author a single position statement entitled
*The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) - *
submitted on Oct. 31, 1996 I believe.
Both faiths agreed that we are “saved by GRACE alone.” Amen

Some Lutherans were dismayed by this because it clearly trumped their claim of salvation by ‘faith alone’, through the ‘the bible alone’.
Bob, what unites us is more important than what divides us.
We should never be afraid of the truth. Christ prayed that ‘they may all be one’. May we grow in our willingness to profess one creed.

God Love You!
Jim from the Lincoln Diocese

 

[JohnRef]

I’m going to answer only your first two points.

1. All Christians follow traditions weather or not they want to admit it, as an example you go to church on Sunday why when the Bible says to keep the Sabbath holy and the Sabbath is Saturday? (cause the Church has us go on Sunday to honor the rising of our Lord)

---

Jesus’ second appearance to his disciples after his resurrection was “eight days after” Easter Sunday (Jn. 20:26). We know there was no other appearance around that time because the appearance in Jn. 21 is expressly described as his third appearance (21:14).

To an Oriental, this second appearance “eight days later” would be the Sunday following his Easter Sunday appearance. Unlike us Westerners, who would count the Monday after Easter Sunday as the first of the “eight days”, they would count Easter Sunday as the first day. Until I realized that, I thought Jesus’ second appearance occurred on the second Monday after Easter Sunday. In any event, we know for a fact he did NOT honor the Jewish Sabbath by appearing to the disciples on THAT day.

So I think we have clear and convincing evidence the change from the last to the first day of the week was made by Christ himself - NOT by the Church, which therefore does NOT have the authority to change it again to, say, Wednesday.

1. If the Bible is the sole authority then why does it tell us to go to the Church? I.E.: if a brother sins against you go and tell him, if he still does not listen take one or two brothers with you, if then he refuses to listen still take him to the BIBLE? No Matthew 18:15-18 lay out that we are to take him before the Church. So the question is not which Bible but which Church?

---

Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the sole source of DOCTRINE (faith) and PRACTICE. The Bible is not going to contain all the details of a dispute between brethren. It is no contradiction of Sola Scriptura for Scripture to tell us to take our disputes to the Church.

JohnRef

 

[Jim_B]

To Those Who Are Interested in This Thread,

Our faith, the Catholic faith is a person, Jesus Christ - not a book.
The Bible is the word of God, Jesus Christ is *God Himself *- second person of the Trinity and fully present in the Eucharist.
Which is why we Catholics worship the Eucharist and not the Bible.
We venerate the Bible and treasure it since it is the word of God, but
our faith revolves around the Eucharist, it is the summit of all
the sacraments.
The Bible is a ‘means’ and not an end in itself.
The “Eternal Word”, Jesus Christ, is infinitely superior and
complete compared to the 73 books of the Bible alone.
Another reason why our liturgy centers on Jesus, and not
just the ‘word alone’.

Yours in the Sacred Heart of Jesus
Jim

 

[TNT]

JohnRef:

I’m going to answer only your first two points.
…
Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the sole source of DOCTRINE (faith) and PRACTICE. The Bible is not going to contain all the details of a dispute between brethren. **It is no contradiction of Sola Scriptura for Scripture to tell us to take our disputes to the Church.

** JohnRef

So, I was watching this dispute between a Lutheran and a Churches of Christ brethren. Actually, husband and wife. It was about getting their newborn baptised or not until the age of reason…or until they at least sin and repent…

So, in your senario of “no contradiction of Sola Scriptura”, how will this dispute be settled by the “church”. And what church will settle it?

 

[Ignatius]

beng:

Re 1:10
I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet.

How do you know that?

Try this fact: No where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only source of Truth and Divine Revelation. In fact, it says just the opposite.

 

[Ignatius]

JohnRef:

To an Oriental, this second appearance “eight days later” would be the Sunday following his Easter Sunday appearance.

Clear and convincing to whom? That is not in the least clear nor is it convincing.

Also, by what authority can they change the day of the Sabbath?

 

[JohnRef]

TNT:

So, I was watching this dispute between a Lutheran and a Churches of Christ brethren. Actually, husband and wife. It was about getting their newborn baptised or not until the age of reason…or until they at least sin and repent…

So, in your senario of “no contradiction of Sola Scriptura”, how will this dispute be settled by the “church”. And what church will settle it?

TNT,

I was not ignoring you, it’s just that I did not get back to this forum until recently.

Your question is a non sequitur. The context was handling disputes involving unrepented sin that were so serious as to end up in a judicial setting, per Mt. 18:15-17, with the potential of the offending party being excommunicated.

I don’t think you believe that people should be excommunicated for failing to agree with their spouses.

This is not to say of course that couples who can’t agree on a matter should never go to their priest/pastor.

 

[DeFide]

grandadmiralboo:

Ok, so what’s the difference between “sola scriptura”, and “solo scriptura/sola scriptura extremis”? Which is the one Luther came up with? Is that the same one evangelicals and fundies use?

Sola/Solo is nothing but a meaningless word game intended to change the topic. Don’t fall for it! They both hold (contrary to the Bible and logic) that the Bible is the sole, final authority with regard to faith and morals.

21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura:

geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/solascriptura21.html