Bible alone

[Annie39]

I see that there are many people who are not Catholic who post to CA. If there are any bible only believers, who believe that the Holy Spirit is leading you personally to interpret scripture would you tell me what Christians who believe this same doctrine did before there was a set canon of NT scriptures?

This is not a challenge but a sincere question. I have had conversations with such a person for the past few days who has threatened to cut off relationship if I persue questions any longer. Since y’all are strangers I thought that I’d ask you.

Thank you,
Annie

 

[pablope]

I see that there are many people who are not Catholic who post to CA. If there are any bible only believers, who believe that the Holy Spirit is leading you personally to interpret scripture would you tell me what Christians who believe this same doctrine did before there was a set canon of NT scriptures?

This is not a challenge but a sincere question. I have had conversations with such a person for the past few days who has threatened to cut off relationship if I persue questions any longer. Since y’all are strangers I thought that I’d ask you.

Thank you,
Annie

Hmmmm…does not want being asked? Looks like your friend is troubled with potential answers…probably questions that were not asked before.

Yesterday…I came across this obsure passage from 3john1…13 I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. 14 I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.

Got me wondering, why did John not want to write…but instead wanted to meet face to face?

 

[po18guy]

Hmmmm…does not want being asked? Looks like your friend is troubled with potential answers…probably questions that were not asked before.

Yesterday…I came across this obsure passage from 3john1…13 I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. 14 I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.

Got me wondering, why did John not want to write…but instead wanted to meet face to face?

2 John 1:12
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
Having more things to write unto you, I would not by paper and ink: for I hope that I shall be with you, and speak face to face: that your joy may be full.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Despite their high regard for Holy Scripture, most protestants have no idea how it came to be. It helps to know the typical protestant understanding.

Of course, no protestant will say that the New Testament was available to the Church at Pentecost. But that’s OK - we didn’t really need the Bible right away, because we had the authors. They could fill us in while the work of writing them was being done. Once it was all written down, they died - but no problem - they left us the Scriptures, which preserves their teachings for all time.

Of course, there is some truth here, but the basic premise is false. They assume that the New Testament was the ONLY corpus of writing of the very early Church, and that those particular 29 books were universally accepted. In truth, there were MANY early Church writings (not all have survived, but we know about them because other authors mentioned them). And there was no consensus on WHICH of those many early Christian writings should be regarded as Scripture (and not everyone accepted the very idea of Christian Scriptures - some considered written Scripture to be a very Old-Testament thing). The New Testament, as we know it, did not exist until the early Fifth Century.

That’s a very uncomfortable truth for many protestants to hear.

 

[po18guy]

One point that scripture frequently reinforces is that it is incomplete. Just a few of the citations are Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34, Collossions 4:7-8. There are many, many others.

How does man live on “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4) if every word of God is not in the bible?

 

[Rainaldo]

tell me what Christians who believe this same doctrine did before there was a set canon of NT scriptures?

Christians like that pretty much didn’t exist until long after the canon was settled, most people say they first arose in the 1400s in Europe. So you are kind of asking a trick question. You are correct that you can’t be a bible-onlyist until AFTER the canon is settled, that’s just plain logic, and yes, it is circular.

 

[Annie39]

One point that scripture frequently reinforces is that it is incomplete. Just a few of the citations are Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34, Collossions 4:7-8. There are many, many others.

How does man live on “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4) if every word of God is not in the bible?

Good Point

 

[Annie39]

Christians like that pretty much didn’t exist until long after the canon was settled, most people say they first arose in the 1400s in Europe. So you are kind of asking a trick question. You are correct that you can’t be a bible-onlyist until AFTER the canon is settled, that’s just plain logic, and yes, it is circular.

Hi Rainaldo,
It is not meant as a trick question. I know many people who believe exactly as I stated but cannot for the life of me figure out how they can justifiy this belief. Those folks in my life don’t even try. I’m supposed to just leave them alone. Which of course I will do but I’m still curious how they explain themselves. Are you protestant btw?

Annie

 

[Trishie]

Jesus tells us before His resurrection that we do not have the whole truth within the bible, so He is sending the Holy Spirit to teach and guide after His ascension into heaven:

veritasbible.com/newjerusalem1989/read/John_16
John Chapter 16
4."…I did not tell you this from the beginning, because I was with you; 5 but now I am going to the one who sent me. Not one of you asks, ‘Where are you going?’ 6 Yet you are sad at heart because I have told you this.

7 Still, I am telling you the truth: it is for your own good that I am going, because unless I go, the Holy Spirit will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
8 And when he comes, he will show the world how wrong it was, about sin, and about who was in the right, and about judgement: 9 about sin: in that they refuse to believe in me; 10 about who was in the right: in that I am going to the Father and you will see me no more; 11 about judgement: in that the prince of this world is already condemned.

12 **I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you to bear now. **

13 However,** when the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth, since he will not be speaking of his own accord, but will say only what he has been told**; and he will reveal to you the things to come.
14 **He will glorify me, since all he reveals to you will be taken from what is mine.
**
15 Everything the Father has is mine; that is why I said: all he reveals to you will be taken from what is mine."

 

[snarflemike]

Of course, no protestant will say that the New Testament was available to the Church at Pentecost. But that’s OK - we didn’t really need the Bible right away, because we had the authors. They could fill us in while the work of writing them was being done. Once it was all written down, they died - but no problem - they left us the Scriptures, which preserves their teachings for all time.

I call this theory the “Brief Golden Age of Christianity”. For a few decades the apostles were alive to correct any errors in Christian doctrine, but when they died the Golden Age was over forever and the Church was plunged into permanent and growing confusion, leading to an explosion of different interpretations of scripture. Really, what does EVERY self-identified follower of Christ believe today? Maybe 1% of what Christ taught?

Even man-made organizations plan for succession when founders die, but God apparently forgot to do so.

 

[Phyllo]

One point that scripture frequently reinforces is that it is incomplete. Just a few of the citations are Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34, Collossions 4:7-8. There are many, many others.

How does man live on “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4) if every word of God is not in the bible?

I must admit I haven’t read all the posts here but this one caught my eye. I think the answer to you question it oral Tradition. Catholics go by the Bible and oral Tradition handed down by Jesus to the apostles and those they taught and so on down the line to us today.

 

[mdcpensive1]

I see that there are many people who are not Catholic who post to CA. If there are any bible only believers, who believe that the Holy Spirit is leading you personally to interpret scripture would you tell me what Christians who believe this same doctrine did before there was a set canon of NT scriptures?

This is not a challenge but a sincere question. I have had conversations with such a person for the past few days who has threatened to cut off relationship if I persue questions any longer. Since y’all are strangers I thought that I’d ask you.

Thank you,
Annie

I think that there are many people think this way because of their personal psychology. Some may just not like to be told they are wrong because it challenges them to defend what they believe which may take a lot of effort and research. Some may have pre-existing beliefs that they know personally can’t be wrong so such things as truth or refutations or quotes make no difference because they have to be wrong because they believe something else. Some may think they are holy so they can’t be wrong because holy people are guided by the spirit. Others may think they go to the right church so what they hear there is what is right and everyone else is wrong.
For a person to cut off a relationship because they don’t like what they hear is not a good way of making friends and developing the body of Christ. But we all have to present our views with love and charity. That is usually what wins the battle.
mdcpensive1

 

[Annie39]

Thank you to everyone who has contributed. I still hope a Person who believes this way
Will reply.

 

[po18guy]

I must admit I haven’t read all the posts here but this one caught my eye. I think the answer to you question it oral Tradition. Catholics go by the Bible and oral Tradition handed down by Jesus to the apostles and those they taught and so on down the line to us today.

When pressed, a bible alone believer will usually say that the bible contains all that is “sufficient” for their salvation. While that is certainly arguable, our Lord did not take flesh so that we might have life to the level of sufficiency. He came that we might have life in abundance (John 10:10). As I see it, bible alone allows one to pick and choose, to privately interpret, and to formulate beliefs and doctrines that are personally acceptable. Viewed practically as a form of humanistic psychology, it is extremely effective. Theologically, not so much.

 

[Annie39]

When pressed, a bible alone believer will usually say that the bible contains all that is “sufficient” for their salvation. While that is certainly arguable, our Lord did not take flesh so that we might have life to the level of sufficiency. He came that we might have life in abundance (John 10:10). As I see it, bible alone allows one to pick and choose, to privately interpret, and to formulate beliefs and doctrines that are personally acceptable. Viewed practically as a form of humanistic psychology, it is extremely effective. Theologically, not so much.

Yes, that is what they say and I have had a discussion or two about that but my question here is what did Christians do for the first almost 400 years? I’m still hoping that some who believes he/she is being personally guided to all truth in the Bible to reply here. Maybe there isn’t such a person reading this forum. If he/she is around I hope that that person would join in the discussion.

 

[po18guy]

Yes, that is what they say and I have had a discussion or two about that but my question here is what did Christians do for the first almost 400 years? I’m still hoping that some who believes he/she is being personally guided to all truth in the Bible to reply here. Maybe there isn’t such a person reading this forum. If he/she is around I hope that that person would join in the discussion.

If the doctrine is of God, produces unity in the faith, and leads to a denial of the self, the taking up of one’s cross, and the following of Jesus (in that order), it is a defensible doctrine.

In actual cause and effect, it was promulgated by man, produced division even while it was being forumlated, lead to the indulgence of the self, the re-designing of one’s cross, and the conforming of the Gospel message to personal desire.

Viewed from the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox viewpoint, there is nothing to defend. There are certainly bible verses which defend scripture, but not a single jot that claims scripture alone. A purely biblical defense is not something that a lot of bible-believers will jump on. Someone undoubtedly will, though. Here is where we nurture the virtue of patience.