Bible Christians: If you claim that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of authority, then how do you convert those who cannot read?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are totally off the mark, OP. A person does not have to READ the Bible himself, but needs to read and/or hear the Word of God himself. The Catholic Church uses their own teachings and Traditions along interpetations of the Bible to help others, Bible Christians allow a person to hear and/or the Word of God.
Keep in mind this is not an arguement or a debate just a statement.
Both ways help a person stay close to God. Instead of fighting over this try to understand that our common goal is. Eternal Salvation and to be with Heaven with God for eternity
:heaven:
 
You completely missed his point. He clearly stated that the Gospel was spread orally first. In other words people HEARD the Gospel. However, there are some Protestants who insist on actually reading the Bible. Hearing is not enough.
I’ve not heard Protestants restricting the meaning of ‘read’ to what you believe.

Would you call it ‘reading’ if they used Braille (embossed symbols on the page), because they are in fact ‘feeling’ the words, rather than seeing the words?
 
Ilroy said: “…you are saying that the Old Testement alone has everything we need”

No. I am saying that the entire Bible is the inerrant word of God. And there is nothing lacking. See verses for the NT:

2 Peter 3:15-16 refers to Paul’'s writings as Scripture. "…as our beloved brother PAUL ACCORDING TO THE WISDOM GIVEN TO HIM, ALSO WROTE TO YOU, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES.

Since Peter considered Paul’‘s writings as Scripture, I should think Peter’'s writings were also considered Scripture - (You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church) Certainly the Gospel of Matthew, also, He was one of the twelve.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Acts 3:16-17

After Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension, the world had the Apostles whom Jesus had spoken directly to. The Apostles were writing these epistles to preserve the teachings of Jesus.

2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? (51 A.D.)

Col 4:16-17 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the [epistle] from Laodicea. And say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.

Jud 1:17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

WE remember the words of Jesus throught he writings of the apostles.
You completely miss my point. The fact remains that at the time the quote you originally gave was written, many of the NT books were not even written yet and the canon of scripture was not as of yet set. Therefor, by your quote, you ARE saying that we only need the OT and maybe the books of the NT that were written at the time. What about the other books that were written at the time but were not untimately brought into the canon? Many of them were being read during the Eucharistic celebration which ultimately became known as the Mass. At that time they were not decided as to be scriptural or not…

And, no, we don’t remember the words of Jesus through the writings of the apostles ONLY. Much of what we know is through the continued teaching of the Catholic Church as set up by Christ Himself. He never told the apostles to go write a book so everyone can believe. No, He told them to go and teach all nations.

You can quote all the cherry picked verses you want…your argument still falls short.
 
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Romans 10:17).
Exactly not by mere reading alone. The Gospel like in the first post I noted was preached orally.

There are some Protestants who went to third world countries where reading is not a norm. When one of them ask questions to the Evangelicals, one of them say, “read the Bible and figure it out yourself.”

This is common amongst Protestants. I even run across some who specifically insist in reading the Bible and interpreting it yourself.

If an illiterate person cannot read, how then can he interpret Scripture? Unless someone teaches interpretation is the correct one.

Many Bible Protestants will claim their “own church” to be the complete truth, yet their doctrines differ from another denominations. I had to say the doctrine of Bible Alone falls apart. Since one have to read the Bible to know what is right and wrong.
 
Can you name one non-Catholic Christian Church that denies an illiterate person can be saved or that affirms that one MUST read the Bible in order to be saved? If you come up with one, please don’t just name names, tell us how you came to the conclusion tha they believe you have to READ the Bible in order to be saved.

If you can’t, than your whole thread is absolutely meaningless.

I’ll be out of town for a few days, I’ll be itnerested in seeing what you come up with.
I’m not implying that. I’m just saying the doctrine of Bible Alone falls apart if someone ask a question like is. “Is abortion wrong?”

Well, the Bible doesn’t have that abortion is sin. It does say “thou shall not kill” it doesn’t give specifics.

The only early Christian that does forbid the use of abortion is the Didache. It states in Chapter 2 verse 3.

you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten (source: newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm )

The Didache was written around 70 AD or about 2nd or 3rd Century.
 
Mannyfit75:

You are dead wrong when you claim “the doctrine of Bible Alone falls apart if someone ask a question like is. ‘Is abortion wrong?’”

Exodus 21:22 is very clear. The pro-abortion gang likes to misinterpret this verse, they translate the word as “miscarriage” but, this verse really says: “If the woman gives birth prematurely, but no harm follows…”

I’ve spoken with Jewish scholars to confirm my understanding of Ex 21:22 The meaning is clear.

The Hebrew word yeled is usually used to refer to children
Gen 21:8 ¶ And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the [same] day that Isaac was weaned.

The same word is used in Exodus 21:22

How could John the Baptist be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb if he wasn’t a person, yet? (Luke 1:15).
 
There are some Protestants who went to third world countries where reading is not a norm. When one of them ask questions to the Evangelicals, one of them say, “read the Bible and figure it out yourself.”

This is common amongst Protestants. I even run across some who specifically insist in reading the Bible and interpreting it yourself.
All I can say is “huh”? :confused:
I lost you, Manny, especially on that first paragraph. What point are you trying to make here? I’m confused. 😦
 
If this view manny has picked up on is common in protestantism then I must have gone around with my eyes closed for 24 years… I have never ever heard this

It may be possible that some small group in a country I’ve never been to may believe this… if there are can you name them… or give a source?

Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with physically READING the bible… it has to do with interpreting the Bible using the Bible itself…because the truth cannot contradict the truth as they see it.

if they can’t READ then they can LISTEN or use other visual aids such as stained glass windows for instance… I have never heard any protestant claim that you must literally READ the words.

Have you any sources Manny or a link or where you heard this missionary you quoted? or else does anybody know any protestant on the forum who would defend this apparently common belief in the need to physically READ the Bible?

I’ve noticed that sola scriptura came into this thread and i think the OP question might get lost in it… if there is a hiden link between the two then inform me but I think the things Manny raises need to be cleared up first.

S
 
Many Bible Protestants will claim their “own church” to be the complete truth, yet their doctrines differ from another denominations. I had to say the doctrine of Bible Alone falls apart. Since one have to read the Bible to know what is right and wrong.
Well “Bible Alone” by itself is meaningless without a definition. Without definition of “Bible Alone”: nobody can say with any certainty whether or not that definition can logically encompass the phenomenon of illiteracy.

However it is a logical falacy to define “Bible Alone” under a definition that is not the one Protestants use, and then to tear down this strawman based on the phenomenon of illiteracy.
 
Ilroy said: “…you are saying that the Old Testement alone has everything we need”

No. I am saying that the entire Bible is the inerrant word of God. And there is nothing lacking.
What criteria do you use to determine that have the “entire Bible?”
 
🙂
I think the truly important thing to remember in speaking of the authority of the Bible is that it was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Bible therefore is God’s Word and its writers, namely the apostles and prophets, were genuinely inspired by the Holy Spirit in doing so. So I believe saying that God’s authority rests on His Word is akin to saying the Holy Spirit has Divine authority and is our Teacher as well as our Comforter. God also never contradicts His own Word either so if one speaks by the power of the Holy Spirit it will not contradict the Word of God recorded in the Bible. Didn’t Jesus Himself say, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.” in Mt.24:35? Since Christ’s Words are recorded in the Old, as well as the New Testament, the apostle confirming, then the Bible is the authority by which we can test every word to discern whether it be of God. Luke praised the Bereans for this in Acts 17:10-11, stating that they were noble in searching out the Scriptures and testinf what Paul & Barnabas were saying. Now as far as reading the Bible is concerned, it is not the reading but the receiving of God’s Word that is most important to Faith and conversion. “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” - Romans 10:17
God Bless, Pat
🙂
 
I’m not implying that. I’m just saying the doctrine of Bible Alone falls apart if someone ask a question like is. “Is abortion wrong?”

Well, the Bible doesn’t have that abortion is sin. It does say “thou shall not kill” it doesn’t give specifics.

The only early Christian that does forbid the use of abortion is the Didache. It states in Chapter 2 verse 3.

you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten (source: newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm )

The Didache was written around 70 AD or about 2nd or 3rd Century.
How about ‘is slavery wrong’? as an example!
 
🙂
I think the truly important thing to remember in speaking of the authority of the Bible is that it was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Bible therefore is God’s Word and its writers, namely the apostles and prophets, were genuinely inspired by the Holy Spirit in doing so. So I believe saying that God’s authority rests on His Word is akin to saying the Holy Spirit has Divine authority and is our Teacher as well as our Comforter. God also never contradicts His own Word either so if one speaks by the power of the Holy Spirit it will not contradict the Word of God recorded in the Bible. Didn’t Jesus Himself say, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.” in Mt.24:35? Since Christ’s Words are recorded in the Old, as well as the New Testament, the apostle confirming, then the Bible is the authority by which we can test every word to discern whether it be of God. Luke praised the Bereans for this in Acts 17:10-11, stating that they were noble in searching out the Scriptures and testinf what Paul & Barnabas were saying. Now as far as reading the Bible is concerned, it is not the reading but the receiving of God’s Word that is most important to Faith and conversion. “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” - Romans 10:17
God Bless, Pat
🙂
That still misses the point because how do you know, for instance, that the *Acts of Mary *is not inspired by the Holy Spirit

Go to this site and tell me which books are inspired.
 
Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching.

He also quotes from other non-Biblical sources, such as this early hymn
Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: “Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”

By Protestant ‘logic’ Paul had no right to do so, however once it’s written down in the Bible it’s now okay! :rolleyes:

He says that is authority to teach comes from the lord (1 Thessalonians 4:2)

Paul himself handed on faith…
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Corinthians 15:3,11).

Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle”
(II Thessalonians 2:15)

The Ethiopian gives a clue to being ‘taught’ the Word…
Acts 8
30
Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31
“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
In other words, he called upon a minister (deacon) to guide him in his readings of the word.
Also, the Ethiopian finds faith, but needs to be baptised (a sacrament).
Acts 10
Cornelius the Roman soldier, finds faith in God, but needs Peter to come to his house before he receives the Holy Spirit. Faith alone was not enough.
In fact, the very name “Acts of the Apostles” not “Faith of the Apostles” tells you something. If faith were alone, then the Bible would have finished at the time Christ rose into heaven; instead it goes on to show what the Apostles did; they taught, they organised, they conferred the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon people.

It is clear that the Ethiopian’s desire to learn was not enough. He had to be taught.

St. Ignatius, taught by St. Peter himself, and writing before the Bible was compiled wrote…
Epistle to the Ephesians
CHAPTER 5
5:1 For if I in a short time had such converse with your bishop, which was not after the manner of men but in the Spirit, how much more do I congratulate you who are closely joined with him as the Church is with Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is with the Father, that all things may be harmonious in unity.

This reflects the Epistle;
Titus 1:7 Since a bishop is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless–not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.
 
Bishopite asks What criteria do you use to determine that (you) have the “entire Bible?”

I said, the entire Bible is the inerrant word of God, not the Bible is the entire word of God.
 
Bishopite asks What criteria do you use to determine that (you) have the “entire Bible?”

I said, the entire Bible is the inerrant word of God, not the Bible is the entire word of God.
Actually, he wants to know how you know that the version of the Bible you have is the entire Bible. I reckon he asks this because there are 7 books and parts of 2 other books missing from the average protestant Bibles.
So, as you admit, the Bible is not the entire Word of God…you are sounding quite Catholic in this. That is why we have the Bible, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium (teaching authority) to guide us, as set up by Christ Himself.
 
How about that, Ilroy!!!
We can agree on something:)

Where we disagree is that Catholics think they need more information than what is in the Bible.

I say the Bible tells me everything that God felt was essential for me to know.

Can you think of even one single piece of info that was left out of Scriptures that is essential to our salvation?
 
How about that, Ilroy!!!
We can agree on something:)

Where we disagree is that Catholics think they need more information than what is in the Bible.

I say the Bible tells me everything that God felt was essential for me to know.

Can you think of even one single piece of info that was left out of Scriptures that is essential to our salvation?
Well, off the top of my head how about the fact that abortion is not to be practiced?
Sure there is the Do Not Kill (murder) commandment, but that doesn’t cover it. There are just circumstances that we can kill, such as self defense etc.
Just got back from lunch so my brain is squishy still…I’ll have to noodle on it some more.😃
 
Mannyfit75:

You are dead wrong when you claim “the doctrine of Bible Alone falls apart if someone ask a question like is. ‘Is abortion wrong?’”

Exodus 21:22 is very clear. The pro-abortion gang likes to misinterpret this verse, they translate the word as “miscarriage” but, this verse really says: “If the woman gives birth prematurely, but no harm follows…”

I’ve spoken with Jewish scholars to confirm my understanding of Ex 21:22 The meaning is clear.

The Hebrew word yeled is usually used to refer to children
Gen 21:8 ¶ And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the [same] day that Isaac was weaned.

The same word is used in Exodus 21:22

How could John the Baptist be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb if he wasn’t a person, yet? (Luke 1:15).
Well, there are others Non-Catholic Christians who insist that killing infant through abortion is not sinful and use the Bible to prove it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top