Bible being the Sole Authority??

[aidanbradypop]

I am sure there are many threads like this out there but they have a million post and most are older threads. I am wanting to start a new one.

My question is this (for non Catholics)…Many claim that they are bible believers and that the bible is the sole authority. How do you arrive at that belief when there is nothing in Sacred Scripture that give credit to the argument? Actually there are verses that state the opposite to sola scriptura. Please keep all post respectful!

 

[cajunhillbilly]

Why do we keep beating the same dead horse over and over? As an Anglican I believe that Scripture is the final authority, but not the only authority. I regonnize Sacred Tradition as well. I am sure our Lutheran brothers will say something similar.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Why do we keep beating the same dead horse over and over? As an Anglican I believe that Scripture is the final authority, but not the only authority. I regonnize Sacred Tradition as well. I am sure our Lutheran brothers will say something similar.

Then this questions is probably not for ya But thanks for posting though.

 

[gmcbroom]

I have friends that follow that creed. They were guided to that by another that shared it. This whether they are aware of it or not it is a tradition. Though they denied it. So I’d posit its a rare individual that actually follows the bible alone with no direction.

 

[Attejohannes]

I am sure there are many threads like this out there but they have a million post and most are older threads. I am wanting to start a new one.

My question is this (for non Catholics)…Many claim that they are bible believers and that the bible is the sole authority. How do you arrive at that belief when there is nothing in Sacred Scripture that give credit to the argument? Actually there are verses that state the opposite to sola scriptura. Please keep all post respectful!

Of course you know, what you are going to get, but anyway I take your challenge. Not in the sense that I will convince you ( I know that it will not happen). I just try to explain this from a Lutheran standpoint:

Regarding the authority of the OT, we have Jesus’ own words (Matt 5, 17-19). We can also see int the Bible that the first Christians recognised the OT as authoritative word of God (1 Timothy, 13; 2 Timothy 15 - 17).

Regarding the NT, Luke specifically says that his motivation to write his Gospel was to convince Theophilos (and naturally all the readers) how reliable and accurate the (presumably) oral teaching they have received is (Luke 1, 1- 4). In other words the Scripture was put as a standard for the accuracy of the teaching.

The Scriptures do not contain everything of Jesus’ life (18 years are missing) and they do not record His every act and word even during His ministry. According to John, “the world would not contain” all the books that should be written, if everything were recorded (John21, 25). This being the case, of course the most essential and most important facts were recorded. It would have been absurd to leave out anything that was necessary to Salvation and use the precious time and papyri to write details of secondary importance, especially, when the intention was to write so that the reader " might believe that Jesus is Christ, Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His Name" (John 20, 31).

So, while we do not know everything about Jesus and apostles, we have an apostolic quarantee that all essential was written down. Moreover, when we look at the postapostolic wriitngs of Ignatios or Polycarp, there is no indication of any extrabibilical tradition regarding the doctrine or practice. All the references that are discernible in the text refer to Scriptures.

There was also a certain suspicion to some, presumably Jewish oral traditions circulating among the first Christians (1. Timothy 1:4,4:7, etc).

Rest my case.

 

[Karen107]

Many who follow Bible only principles confuse this scripture. The Word is referring to the messenger (Jesus) It doesn’t mean bible.

The Word Became Flesh

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

When we look at this scripture we go with the knowledge that the message was the Good news of the Gospels… Gospels doesn’t mean the New Testament. Spreading The Gospels means spreading the Good news of Christ. The disciples PREACHED the good news of Jesus Christ, they didn’t pass out bibles.

Mark 16:20 And they went forth and ‘preached’ everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it. Amen.

Jesus and the Apostles They did not preach the scriptures, because they were not written yet, but recorded down later in a scripture and included into the bible (like Mark 16:20). So we’re seeing the witnessing (and letters) of what occured with Jesus and the Apostles during their lifetime written into the scriptures after the occured. Not coming from the scriptures. Knowing that, the testamonies of Jesus and the Apostles were the Christian traditions that were written into the bible, Such as celebrating the Last Supper and the Eucharistic feast. What protestants are concerned of is following the traditions of man (not Christ) as in the worshipping Sun Gods, or feastivals of those which don’t follow Christ. Christ changed a lot of things and our society has been changed since Jesus in the way we celebrate, when it has to do with God and Jesus Christ such as “Christmas or Easter”, it is not wrong. Jesus does not only transform us but transforms entire societies and what they do. Part of the traditions of Christ are formed out of our belief in God.

 

[Karen107]

Of course you know, what you are going to get, but anyway I take your challenge. Not in the sense that I will convince you ( I know that it will not happen). I just try to explain this from a Lutheran standpoint:

Regarding the authority of the OT, we have Jesus’ own words (Matt 5, 17-19). We can also see int the Bible that the first Christians recognised the OT as authoritative word of God (1 Timothy, 13; 2 Timothy 15 - 17).

Regarding the NT, Luke specifically says that his motivation to write his Gospel was to convince Theophilos (and naturally all the readers) how reliable and accurate the (presumably) oral teaching they have received is (Luke 1, 1- 4). In other words the Scripture was put as a standard for the accuracy of the teaching.

The Scriptures do not contain everything of Jesus’ life (18 years are missing) and they do not record His every act and word even during His ministry. According to John, “the world would not contain” all the books that should be written, if everything were recorded (John21, 25). This being the case, of course the most essential and most important facts were recorded. It would have been absurd to leave out anything that was necessary to Salvation and use the precious time and papyri to write details of secondary importance, especially, when the intention was to write so that the reader " might believe that Jesus is Christ, Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His Name" (John 20, 31).

So, while we do not know everything about Jesus and apostles, we have an apostolic quarantee that all essential was written down. Moreover, when we look at the postapostolic wriitngs of Ignatios or Polycarp, there is no indication of any extrabibilical tradition regarding the doctrine or practice. All the references that are discernible in the text refer to Scriptures.

There was also a certain suspicion to some, presumably Jewish oral traditions circulating among the first Christians (1. Timothy 1:4,4:7, etc).

Rest my case.

Jesus is the fulfillment of the scriptures so yes, some of Jewish oral traditions and teachings are reflected in the church practices and teachings, especially as many the Disciples came from Jewish backgrounds and knew the law. The disciples were forming and building up church and had the authority to make decisions for the church. You’ll see part of that debate in 1 Timothy 1:4, 4-7, etc.

Now there is a difference in interpretation. How is it that people like Martin Luthers feeling that they had the authority to decide what goes in and doesn’t go into the bible? And if everyone believes they have the authority to accept scriptures on their own merit and lean on their own understandings, would there be any absolute truth? We could find some scripture tossed into the desert because it was extraneous to the thousand other scripture which confirmed the meaning of the scripture because they were inline with all the other testamonies when they were putting together the bible back then, and suddenly start using that tossed away that single scripture for teaching here in the 21st century because it was found, forgetting that there were so many other witnesses supporting what went into the bible 2,000 years ago. It just doesn’t work that way. Jesus gave authority to Peter to Lead His church on earth and that’s what happened.

Jesus gave His Authority to St. Peter, to lead his Church. So it was on Jesus churches authority to decide what would be canon and included in the bible.

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

 

[studychristian]

When I was a protestant I believed the “Sole Authority” idea and with that idea, I believe their is some truth in it. But the Bible makes more logical sense as another tradition and tool for the Christians, it doesn’t make much sense that its the “Sole Authority” since it does not contain everything Jesus said or did (the Gospel of Saint John made note of this).

 

[CJeplin]

Actually only a few Protestant religions promote the hardline sola scriptura stance that emblazed Christendom during the Reformation. Since the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was created and agreed upon in 1999 Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, and many others have come to an understanding that changes much about how this doctrine is viewed by all parties involved, at least officially.

But as threads like this so often show, many members of these faiths act as if one of the most important agreements in Christianity’s history never happened. Because of this people are debating and/or challenging people over a subject that has changed considerably in its application.

For example, while often believed to be a material principle of Protestants by both Catholics and Protestant lay persons alike, it is only a formal principle. As such it is not the central teaching of mainstream Protestant theology. From the time of Luther until today the doctrine of sola scriptura never claims or directs that Apostolic Tradition is false or that Church authority has no right to exercise its power of teaching. Sola scriptura simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by Holy Writ.

True, this understanding got distorted through the years of debates and fighting, and it was generally forgotten even by those who promoted it. That tends to happen when people take sides and want to win an argument. All reason gets thrown to the wind, people demonize the other side, and eventually we end up changing what we believe on the spot just to seem like champion of the debate. Before you know it everyone is angry and excommunicating everybody else and no one is paying attention to the Gospel.

While the Joint Declaration does not directly deal with sola scriptura itself, it does admit that both Protestants and Catholics ignored their own views in the attempt to win the arguments that came to the fore. The fighting on both sides hid the fact that all were debating “two side of the same nickel.” One side could only see “heads,” and the other side could only see “tails,” and people wanted to fight instead of celebrate the fact that God had provided us with a “nickle” in the first place.

The truth of the matter is that all these faiths that recognize and accept the Joint Declaration accept the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. They also accept that without Apostolic Tradition there would be no Bible to “argue” about in the first place. Sure, like we have here, people are still bickering over the details, but it’s time to put things to rest. For the past 2000 years the Church Universal has served from a table of Tradition and Scripture, and it all comes from God. Our religions are based on Christ, the Ever-Living Word of God. Jesus Christ is the foundation of our religious truth, and everything else springs from Him, Scripture and Tradition included.

Now there are a few groups left, like some Evangelical Fundamental movements that still want to hold on to the “one-sided nickle” view. And we have groups like the Latter-Day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses who are still stuck on the idea that ‘true religion is based on a book’ instead of on a Person, namely Christ, but they are the minority. Mainstream Christianity entered the new millennium more united than ever.

Sure, there are still great differences to overcome in many places. But some of those differences are gone now. If we are not familiar with the Joint Declaration and how it has affected our religions, then you are some 14 years behind. Time to get with the program and stop fighting among ourselves. The world around us is more faithless than ever. It’s time we recognize that bridges have already been built between us and that we need to get across now and defend our sister and brother, because if there was ever a time that people of faith needed one another, it is now.

So leave that dead horse to rot, for we are no better if we keep on beating it.

 

[batman1973]

I’ve been on this website for a while and I checked some out some of the threads, let me see if I’ve got this correct: the Bible belongs to the Catholic Church she was the 1 that compiled it or wrote it depending on who you talk to, the Bible should have never been taken out of the church. It is nothing more than a liturgical accessory, if you wanna daily Bible study you go to daily Mass if you want a weekly Bible study then you for your weekly obligation. The Bible is not meant to be privately interpreted, that is left up to the church’s infallible Magisterium. To do anything else is heretical. Does that about sum it up correctly?

 

[Karen107]

I’ve been on this website for a while and I checked some out some of the threads, let me see if I’ve got this correct: the Bible belongs to the Catholic Church she was the 1 that compiled it or wrote it depending on who you talk to, the Bible should have never been taken out of the church. It is nothing more than a liturgical accessory, if you wanna daily Bible study you go to daily Mass if you want a weekly Bible study then you for your weekly obligation. The Bible is not meant to be privately interpreted, that is left up to the church’s infallible Magisterium. To do anything else is heretical. Does that about sum it up correctly?

Actually the bible still is in the church and in our homes as they always were. Most people I know remember growing up with the Family bibles in their homes. I often read it, but didn’t really absorb it well because of the old english writings of the ‘thee’s and thy’s’ in it. The bible truthfully really didn’t hold my attention but I was fascinated by it. I was a bit afraid though I might tear those tissue thin bible pages… This was an important family book to be sure!!. But that really didn’t matter overall because the stories of the bible became familiar to me just by hearing them at mass. That coupled with taking the Eucharist and praying with my family who encouraged my belief, I suppose that was enough to satisfy my belief in God. I think about what it meant long ago when there weren’t enough bibles to go around, or people didn’t know how to read, and people went to mass heard these stories, and there were actually art and statues further explaining these bible stories, it was like having the Word of God all around them. I love to go into old churches and look at the antique Christian art…

I am currently in a bible study class that my parish conducts and I’m learning alot about the scriptures, and have learned the history behind how the scriptures came to be. The scripture study I’m in now is called The Spirituality of the Gospels. I have found that when we understanding the scriptures, it’s important to know the rationale behind the meanings by looking at them from the writers point of view rather than our point of view and that scriptures should be understood from that perspective. The study of the scriptures helps us build up our spirituality and our faith whether it be privately or in the church, that’s the spiritual nature of them and why the scriptures are presented the way they are, from a God inspired point of view.

 

[SteveVH]

I’ve been on this website for a while and I checked some out some of the threads, let me see if I’ve got this correct: the Bible belongs to the Catholic Church she was the 1 that compiled it or wrote it depending on who you talk to

Yes, the Bible is a Catholic document, written by Catholics for Catholics and deternined to be the inspired word of God by Catholics. This is based upon the demonstrable fact that the Catholic Church began on Pentecost, therefore the Apostles and other members of the Church were Catholic.

the Bible should have never been taken out of the church.

Until relatively modern times and the advent of the printing press Bibles were just not available for reading outside of the Church. Because of their value they were chained or locked away as they were adorned with precious jewels and were a target for theives. Most people were illiterate anyway and depended upon hearing the readings (and having them explained) in the Church. The entire idea of one wandering off with their own Bible under their arm was unheard of. In any event, the Catholic Church urges all of its members to read the Bible daily.

It is nothing more than a liturgical accessory

Far from it. It is the word of God and is so honored that the liturgy of the word is the first part of the holy Mass.

if you wanna daily Bible study you go to daily Mass if you want a weekly Bible study then you for your weekly obligation.

It is a wonderful thing to go to daily Mass if one is able. One will go through the entire Bible, complete with explanation, every three years by attending daily Mass. We also have Bible studies outside of Mass. I just finished a 24 week course that was really great.

The Bible is not meant to be privately interpreted, that is left up to the church’s infallible Magisterium. To do anything else is heretical. Does that about sum it up correctly?

We are obligated to read the Bible in light of the Church’s teaching. The Church received the fulness of revelation before a word of the Bible was written or canonized. We need to make sure that our interpretation is in line with that Apostolic truth. If it isn’t, then we are not interpreting it correctly. That truth lies in Sacred Tradition and is subject to the judgment of the Magisterium. So we have Sacred Scripture, which flowed from Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium (teaching office) of the Church by which we receive the deposit of faith given to us by the Apostles. None of these can act independently of the other because they all derive from the same fountain of truth. To exclude all but one (the Bible) and believe that one can privately discern truth, free from error, is a delusion and the thousands upon thousand of denominations today are prima facie evidence of this.

Blessings.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’ve been on this website for a while and I checked some out some of the threads, let me see if I’ve got this correct: the Bible belongs to the Catholic Church she was the 1 that compiled it or wrote it depending on who you talk to, the Bible should have never been taken out of the church. It is nothing more than a liturgical accessory, if you wanna daily Bible study you go to daily Mass if you want a weekly Bible study then you for your weekly obligation. The Bible is not meant to be privately interpreted, that is left up to the church’s infallible Magisterium. To do anything else is heretical. Does that about sum it up correctly?

Bat,

This is sorta Ok…however

Has God abandoned His people, by no means…for to you were GIVEN the utterance of Scripture…Scripture is given to the people by God…

It was not given to Protestants, they stole it…

It was given to the Church by God, and it was a part of the liturgy, in fact the Orthodox have various parts of Scripture scatterred around the Church and not necessarily compiled for private reading.

Bible study as we know it demands the ability to print, the ability to read, the ability to understand…and be taught…

7So he got up and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” 30Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Someone has to teach you what you are reading…so if

You go to a Lutheran Bible study, you learn Lutheran Theology
You go to a Jehovah Witness Bible Study you learn Jehovah Witness Theology
You go to a Presbyterian Bible Study, you learn Reformed Theology…

Private interpretation leads to Bible Studies and Theologies and the Church suggests you avoid this confusion and stay within the teaching of the Church and study the Bible with access to teachings of the Church, ie the Catechism…

Ok…

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve been on this website for a while and I checked some out some of the threads, let me see if I’ve got this correct: the Bible belongs to the Catholic Church she was the 1 that compiled it or wrote it depending on who you talk to, the Bible should have never been taken out of the church. It is nothing more than a liturgical accessory, if you wanna daily Bible study you go to daily Mass if you want a weekly Bible study then you for your weekly obligation. The Bible is not meant to be privately interpreted, that is left up to the church’s infallible Magisterium. To do anything else is heretical. Does that about sum it up correctly?

No!



Here’s where your comments need some tweaking. “It is nothing more than a liturgical accessory,”

That is an incorrect explication of the Scriptures and its use in the Divine Liturgy and of the Divine Liturgy and its use of Scripture.

And this comments warrants tweaking: “The Bible is not meant to be privately interpreted,”

Catholicism says that the Bible must be interpreted privately, but it can never countermand the Tradition which gave you this Bible. It must be viewed within the living Tradition of the whole Church.

Thus, if someone reads the Scriptures and privately interprets that Jesus was NOT DIVINE, then he is not free to go with this interpretation. You agree with this prohibition too, right?

IOW: All of us are given the freedom to privately interpret Scripture–just not to the point where it contravenes doctrine/dogma.

For example, let’s say I’m planning a dinner party for 40 people and I’m stressing out about food preparation. Before the party I decide to go to Adoration, and before the Blessed Sacrament I open the Word randomly to the story of Jesus and the Multiplication of the Loaves.

I am certainly free to interpret that verse as, “Don’t worry, PR! I will take care of you! No one will go away from your home hungry.”

However, we must interpret Scripture according to the faith by which it was written (Catholic).

 

[batman1973]

Bat,

This is sorta Ok…however

Has God abandoned His people, by no means…for to you were GIVEN the utterance of Scripture…Scripture is given to the people by God…

It was not given to Protestants, they stole it…

It was given to the Church by God, and it was a part of the liturgy, in fact the Orthodox have various parts of Scripture scatterred around the Church and not necessarily compiled for private reading.

Bible study as we know it demands the ability to print, the ability to read, the ability to understand…and be taught…

Someone has to teach you what you are reading…so if

You go to a Lutheran Bible study, you learn Lutheran Theology
You go to a Jehovah Witness Bible Study you learn Jehovah Witness Theology
You go to a Presbyterian Bible Study, you learn Reformed Theology…

Private interpretation leads to Bible Studies and Theologies and the Church suggests you avoid this confusion and stay within the teaching of the Church and study the Bible with access to teachings of the Church, ie the Catechism…

Ok…

And, that’s why the prospect of true Christian unity is not gonna happen. Protestants stole nothing. The bible belongs to God. Also, the bible says not to trust in the arm of the flesh and in God. Jeremiah 17:5. Men, are fallible. I’m sorry if you disagree with this. To trust in man over God in just not the way He wants it.

 

[CopticChristian]

And, that’s why the prospect of true Christian unity is not gonna happen. Protestants stole nothing. The bible belongs to God. Also, the bible says not to trust in the arm of the flesh and not in God. Jeremiah 17:5. Men, are fallible. I’m sorry if you disagree with this. To trust in man over God in just not the way He wants it.

Bat,

If the Bible belongs to God, how is it that it was changed over the years, retranslated with a Hebrew Old Testament, and then parts taken out…did God do this?

and if it is God’s how’d you get it?

 

[batman1973]

The old testament came about long before the CC. You know this, Coptic. The Jews used it. Jesus used it. My understanding the Jews don’t use the DCs. (I could be wrong, wouldn’t be the first time) As for the new testament, yes, the CC did compile it, but, the letters have been around for a looong time.

 

[Hascard]

Generally, Anglicans take the Bible to be the first and last authority in any and all controversies because that is the unanimous witness of the Fathers. The Bible is the Tradition, according to the venerable & ancient Christians.

 

[CopticChristian]

Generally, Anglicans take the Bible to be the first and last authority in any and all controversies because that is the unanimous witness of the Fathers. The Bible is the Tradition, according to the venerable & ancient Christians.

Hascard,

Name the Fathers that use the Bible as the first and last authority…please take your time…

 

[CJeplin]

The Church is not based on the Bible. The Bible is a product of the Church. It’s just like Judaism. The Jews didn’t wait several thousand years before they had a book written to base their religion on. The book reflects and is a product of their religion.

Think about it this way. Say someone decided to take the book Dianetics and base a religion on it, but at the same time reject membership in the Church of Scientology, the religion from which that book comes from. Let’s say that we base our understanding of the book on anything but the official interpretation of the Church of Scientology and what it had to say about Dianetics? Absurd, no? Why base a religion on the writings of Scientology but not become a Scientologist or try to interpret Dianetics without direction from the Church of Scientology?

But that is what people do with the New Testament all the time. They have taken the book out of the Church and done just the same thing.

Why not take the Qur’an and follow it but not become Islam? How about take the writings of the current Dalai Lama but reject Buddhism? Let’s build a religion based on the *Book of Mormon, *but let’s not be Mormon nor accept what the LDS church has to say on how to interpret and apply the writings of their own holy book! Sounds crazy, no?