Bible-only Christians: Why do you use the Bible?

[Johndigger]

Instead of doing a dance of questions, can you answer my posts first? Then I’d be quite happy to get into a discussion about what criteria for an Apostle is.

However, at the moment we are discussing Authority. I posted a couple of questions in post #18 and #15

I will post them for you here:

Don’t you think it’s quite scary that the books that went into our bible were decided soley by common consensus?

And what about the people that did have extra books/less books? On what Authority did people tell them their “bibles” were wrong and thus getting them to use the same bible as everyone else?

I’d at least like some kind of rebuttal/reply.

JD

Edit: Ahh, wonderful, you’ve just posted. Thank you.

 

[b_justb]

SyCarl:

How does the Catholic Church establish its authority? It can be from the Bible because, under your reasoning, we can’t have a Bible until we know the Church has the authority to determine it. Tradition gets you no place because again, even if Tradition is valid, you can’t know what Tradition is before the authority of the Church is established.

Matthew 15:15-17 (RSV)

15 [Jesus speaking] “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

This tells me that The Church existed prior to the canonization of Christian Scriptures. Why else would our Lord say these words?

 

[SyCarl]

Instead of doing a dance of questions, can you answer my posts first? Then I’d be quite happy to get into a discussion about what criteria for an Apostle is.

However, at the moment we are discussing Authority. I posted a couple of questions in post #18 and #15

I will post them for you here:

I’d at least like some kind of rebuttal/reply.

JD

Edit: Ahh, wonderful, you’ve just posted. Thank you.

No I don’t think that is scary. I trust that the Holy Spirit guided them in the process. And it is less scary to me than believeing a claim by a group of people that they have been given infallible authority.

I did address the second question. There is no indication that books like the Gospel of Thomas had the same recognition as the canonical books. Some groups may have thought they were canonical but not the entire Church.

Now will you tell be where the Church gets its authority, without using the Bible.

 

[SyCarl]

Matthew 15:15-17 (RSV)

15 [Jesus speaking] “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

This tells me that The Church existed prior to the canonization of Christian Scriptures. Wy else would our Lord say these words?

You can’t use the Bible to establish the authority of the Church under your argument. If there is no Church, we are told there is no Bible. If the Church is needed first, its authority must be established first before the Bible can be considered.

 

[b_justb]

You can’t use the Bible to establish the authority of the Church under your argument. If there is no Church, we are told there is no Bible. If the Church is needed first, its authority must be established first before the Bible can be considered.

The events written in the text I pointed to are Jesus’ words. They are recorded well after His speaking them. They point directly to the authority of the Church. There are many other non-biblical texts that do the same. These writings have not been canonized. Would you prefer those or will the words of Christ suffice?

 

[SyCarl]

The events written in the text I pointed to are Jesus’ words. They are recorded well after His speaking them. They point directly to the authority of the Church. There are many other non-biblical texts that do the same. These writings have not been canonized. Would you prefer those or will the words of Christ suffice?

I think you are missing my point. I agree that passage you gave refers to the Church, although we would disagree on what is meant by the Church.

However, as Catholis say we wouldn’t have the Bible unless the Church told us what it was, you cannot refer to that passage as establishing the Church because unless we have already established the authority of the Church.we don’t know that the passage is in the Bible. We are told that:

AUTHORITATIVE CHURCH ------------->BIBLE

What is needed is something before the Church to tell us that the Church has authoroity. If the Bible depends on the Church then it is merely the Church telling us, either by Scripture or Tradition, that it has the authority. However a body cannot establish authority on its own say so. Now you can rely on faith to determine the authority of the Church, but if that is the case, then Protestants can rely on faith in believing the authority of the Bible.

 

[Johndigger]

Snip

When dealing with any “ultimate Authority” this circular argument is going to be in place.

You could make exactly the same argument about Jesus. How do we know that Jesus as God is the Ultimate Authority? It comes down to faith that Jesus Christ was who he said he was by the things that He did and said.

We don’t think that the Church has Authority because the Church says so - we believe the Church has Authority because Jesus says so.

We agree that there was lots of dispute over the cannon of the bible :
St.Cyril 315-386 A.D:

Then of the New Testament there are four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are harmful. The Manicheans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being smeared with the fragrance of the name ‘Gospel’ destroys the souls of those who are rather simple-minded. Receive also the Acts of the Twelve Apostles; and in addition to these the seven Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and as a seal upon them all, and the latest work of disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul.
But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank. And whatever books are not read in the churches, do not read these even by yourself

Note: Revelations is missing
Canon approved by "apostolic canon":

Canon 85. Let the following books be esteemed venerable and holy by all of you, both clergy and laity. [A list of books of the Old Testament …] And our sacred books, that is, of the New Testament, are the four Gospels, of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James; one of Jude; two Epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions dedicated to you, the bishops, by me, Clement, in eight books, which is not appropriate to make public before all, because of the mysteries contained in them; and the Acts of us, the Apostles.

Note: Again, Reveltions is missing and two epistles of Clement are added
Canon of Amphilochius of Iconium (A bishop) 394 A.D:

It is time for me to speak of the books of the New Testament.
Receive only four evangelists:
Matthew, then Mark, to whom, having added Luke
As third, count John as fourth in time,
But first in height of teachings,
For I call this one rightly a son of thunder,
Sounding out most greatly with the word of God.
And receive also the second book of Luke,
That of the catholic Acts of the Apostles.
Add next the chosen vessel,
The herald of the Gentiles, the apostle
Paul, having written wisely to the churches
Twice seven Epistles: to the Romans one,
To which one must add two to the Corinthians,
That to the Galatians, and that to the Ephesians, after which
That in Philippi, then the one written
To the Colassians, two to the Thessalonians,
Two to Timothy, and to Titus and the Philemon,
One each, and one to the Hebrews.
But some say the one to the Hebrews is spurious,
not saying well, for the grace is genuine.
Well, what remains? Of the Catholic Epistles
Some say we must receive seven, but others say
Only three should be received – that of James, one,
And one of Peter, and those of John, one.
And some receive three [of John], and besides these, two
of Peter, and that of Jude a seventh.
And again the Revelation of John,
Some approve, but the most
Say it is spurious, This is
Perhaps the most reliable
canon of the divinely inspired Scriptures.

This again, reports the debate about the Revelation of John, Hebrews, some letters of John.

Even into the 4th century there was disagreement about the canon of scripture.

So, again, I ask, on what Authority did the Church tell people that some books were wrong and which were correct?

Apologies for the long post but I wanted to fortify my position with some quotes.

JD

 

[JohnnyReb]

What is needed is something before the Church to tell us that the Church has authoroity. If the Bible depends on the Church then it is merely the Church telling us, either by Scripture or Tradition, that it has the authority. However a body cannot establish authority on its own say so. Now you can rely on faith to determine the authority of the Church, but if that is the case, then Protestants can rely on faith in believing the authority of the Bible.

Just like we need something before the Bible to tell us that the Bible has authority. We can’t use the Bible to establish the Bible’s authority, as most Protestants do. Its circular reasoning. The church (whether one wants to see it as the visible or invisible church), a pillar of truth, gave the Bible.

When I went to Mass (I am not Catholic yet) on Pentecost Sunday, the Priest talked about Pentecost Sunday being the birthday of the Church. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, which gave brith to the Church. While Jesus did give authority to the Apostles, he told them to wait in Jerusalem until they received power from above, which turned out to be the Holy Spirit. The Church, with the guidance of this same Holy Spirit, wrote the Holy Scriptures, and recognized them as authoritiative.

Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, which gave birth to the church, which gave us the scriptures. All authority of the Church and the Bible are rooted in Christ, through the Holy Spirit.

 

[SyCarl]

When dealing with any “ultimate Authority” this circular argument is going to be in place.

You could make exactly the same argument about Jesus. How do we know that Jesus as God is the Ultimate Authority? It comes down to faith that Jesus Christ was who he said he was by the things that He did and said.

We don’t think that the Church has Authority because the Church says so - we believe the Church has Authority because Jesus says so.

We agree that there was lots of dispute over the cannon of the bible :

Note: Revelations is missing

Note: Again, Reveltions is missing and two epistles of Clement are added

This again, reports the debate about the Revelation of John, Hebrews, some letters of John.

Even into the 4th century there was disagreement about the canon of scripture.

So, again, I ask, on what Authority did the Church tell people that some books were wrong and which were correct?

Apologies for the long post but I wanted to fortify my position with some quotes.

JD

First, can you tell me exactly when the Church defined the canon in your understanding?

 

[Johndigger]

Do you always answer a question with a question…?

 

[christcnection1]

There are countless Bible verses which not only affirm tradition, but also affirm apostolic authority.

scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html

I’m not saying our separted brethren are wrong in doing this (though I believe they are), but in order to accept the Bible, they must also believe that an institution largely walking in theological darkness (based on Non-Catholic beliefs) affirmed which books belonged in the Bible.

Is this how God chose to operate?

If so, why didn’t God spark the “Reformation” in the 5th century instead of waiting approximately 1,500 years for His people to emerge out of some black hole?

Which reflects God’s nature better?

A. He established a visible Church with legitimate authority to govern His people and guide them into all truth, from start to finish.

-or-

B. God allowed His Church to walk in theological darkness for 1,500 years until true Christianity could emerge allowing all men to interpret the Bible for themselves, thus dividing His people into many segments.

Truthfully, I could be wrong!

However, to accept the pillars of Protestantism, and reject sacred tradition, clear scriptural support that God established a legitimate authority, and to reject a conviction which better reflects God’s nature requires a faith that I do not have.

These are indeed issues of faith my siblings in Christ, but the choice seems clear to me for dozens of reasons.

 

[SyCarl]

Do you always answer a question with a question…?

No, not always. But when did the Church establish it? Are you relying on the local councils of Carthage and Hippo or something else?

 

[b_justb]

SyCarl:

… Catholis say we wouldn’t have the Bible unless the Church told us what it was, you cannot refer to that passage as establishing the Church because unless we have already established the authority of the Church.we don’t know that the passage is in the Bible.

The passage cited does not refer to the original or beginning of the establishment of the Church it shows that it is already established and is already authoritive at the time of Jesus’ speaking.

SyCarl:

We are told that:

AUTHORITATIVE CHURCH ------------->BIBLE

What is needed is something before the Church to tell us that the Church has authoroity. If the Bible depends on the Church then it is merely the Church telling us, either by Scripture or Tradition, that it has the authority. However a body cannot establish authority on its own say so. Now you can rely on faith to determine the authority of the Church, but if that is the case, then Protestants can rely on faith in believing the authority of the Bible.

I don’t think this holds true at all. I think the “something before the Church” would be Christ and “to tell us that the Church has authoroity” would be an example of the passage in Matt 15. A body can certainly claim authority in it’s on own merits or wants:
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Of course faith enters into one thoughts and beliefs on the authority question. But there should be reason along with that faith. I think the OP’s question is a very reasonable one, and one I have asked many bible believing Christians and the only reasonable remark I’ve heard offered is the one already put forth in the thread: “God works His covenants through people as He always has throughout the economy of salvation thus He chose to give His people the written word through the workings of these people in the Church, that does not suggest that the Church has authority in all matters of faith and morals due to .” I think that’s a fair argument. I also think it’s fair to say the Church collected the works and the authority she exercised was to definitively say what was Divinely inspired. Even in this area we have the question remaining that if Protestants accept as valid the canon of the NT, on what grounds do they deny the canon of the OT? If God worked through the faithful in safeguarding Scripture why deny the OT canon? If it is a matter of “faith directs my thoughts” how then can anyone faith experience be disregarded? Anyone whose faith says this text is Divine, must be accepted. But Protestants don’t do that, I find that to be inconsistent.

 

[SyCarl]

There are countless Bible verses which not only affirm tradition, but also affirm apostolic authority.

scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html

I’m not saying our separted brethren are wrong in doing this (though I believe they are), but in order to accept the Bible, they must also believe that an institution largely walking in theological darkness (based on Non-Catholic beliefs) affirmed which books belonged in the Bible.

Is this how God chose to operate?

If so, why didn’t God spark the “Reformation” in the 5th century instead of waiting approximately 1,500 years for His people to emerge out of some black hole?

Which reflects God’s nature better?

A. He established a visible Church with legitimate authority to govern His people and guide them into all truth, from start to finish.

-or-

B. God allowed His Church to walk in theological darkness for 1,500 years until true Christianity could emerge allowing all men to interpret the Bible for themselves, thus dividing His people into many segments.

Truthfully, I could be wrong!

However, to accept the pillars of Protestantism, and reject sacred tradition, clear scriptural support that God established a legitimate authority, and to reject a conviction which better reflects God’s nature requires a faith that I do not have.

These are indeed issues of faith my siblings in Christ, but the choice seems clear to me for dozens of reasons.

Referring to the quotes on the links you provided there is no dispute that teachings were originally oral. However they were later put into Scripture.

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.-Irenaeus (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.)

With respect to tradition, the Bible also warns against traditions of men. Jesus himself refers to the traditions of the Pharisees. If the established Church of the Old Testament could teach error through tradition, how can we trust oral Tradition.

It must also be remembered that it is not proper to read back the current Catholic definition of Tradition into the writings of the early church. If the writer was referring to the Gospel being passed on orally as tradition that is not the same as there being a separate body of Tradition along side the Scriptures. As Irenaeus notes the oral teachings were enscriptualized.

 

[Dulcimer]

You brought up a few things in that last post, but let’s stick with one thing.

So, the Church has no Authority and the book of the bible were decided basically by “Public opinion”

That doesn’t really give me much confidence in the bible, unfortunately.

Don’t you think it’s quite scary that the books that went into our bible were decided soley by common consensus?

And what about the people that did have extra books/less books? On what Authority did people tell them their “bibles” were wrong and thus getting them to use the same bible as everyone else?

JD

He answered your question, and “No” the books of the Bible were not solely decided by common consensus…the inspiration in the books is evident when you read them; Do they agree with each other? Are they harmonius? Are they truthful (i.e., do they give a false account of something which we know from other sources to be inaccurate)? This can be determined by “common sense”.

“All scripture is god-breathed (“inspired”) by God and useful for correction, reproof and training in righteousness.” Do ‘extra-biblical’ books fit this bill? If not, they’re not inspired, and therefore should not be added to the cannon.

In matters of history, consensus is important; one requires two or more witnesses to establish a fact. If 5,000 voices claim something happened and 1 claims it did not, in a court of law, the 1 person is either a liar or in error.

The Bible–and every other book of antiquity–is a historical document and can be determined to be valid using textual criticism; it goes without saying that the criteria for useful t.c., must be the same across the board, and the same proofs required from each text.

shutting up now

 

[SyCarl]

The passage cited does not refer to the original or beginning of the establishment of the Church it shows that it is already established and is already authoritive at the time of Jesus’ speaking.

I don’t think this holds true at all. I think the “something before the Church” would be Christ and “to tell us that the Church has authoroity” would be an example of the passage in Matt 15. A body can certainly claim authority in it’s on own merits or wants:

Of course faith enters into one thoughts and beliefs on the authority question. But there should be reason along with that faith. I think the OP’s question is a very reasonable one, and one I have asked many bible believing Christians and the only reasonable remark I’ve heard offered is the one already put forth in the thread: “God works His covenants through people as He always has throughout the economy of salvation thus He chose to give His people the written word through the workings of these people in the Church, that does not suggest that the Church has authority in all matters of faith and morals due to .” I think that’s a fair argument. I also think it’s fair to say the Church collected the works and the authority she exercised was to definitively say what was Divinely inspired. Even in this area we have the question remaining that if Protestants accept as valid the canon of the NT, on what grounds do they deny the canon of the OT? If God worked through the faithful in safeguarding Scripture why deny the OT canon? If it is a matter of “faith directs my thoughts” how then can anyone faith experience be disregarded? Anyone whose faith says this text is Divine, must be accepted. But Protestants don’t do that, I find that to be inconsistent.

Again though, how do we know Jesus said this except that the Church tells us it is Scripture.
For example I can say that Queen Elizabeth made me heir to the British Throne. I can even write it down. Can I then use the fact that I wrote it down to support my claim?

It is the same with the Church. It says that it has authority because of this wrting we are giving you, on our authority, says so.

Ultimately it comes down to what you have faith in because it is very much a “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” situation.

 

[b_justb]

SyCarl:

Again though, how do we know Jesus said this except that the Church tells us it is Scripture.
For example I can say that Queen Elizabeth made me heir to the British Throne. I can even write it down. Can I then use the fact that I wrote it down to support my claim?

It is the same with the Church. It says that it has authority because of this wrting we are giving you, on our authority, says so.

Ultimately it comes down to what you have faith in because it is very much a “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” situation.

Not in this case. Both sides agree it is the Church that was used to preserve Scripture. It isn’t a what came first question, the Church or the Canon of Sacred Scripture, everyone knows that the Church came first. If one doubts that they have a problem with reality and reading a time line. The querstion then becomes why discount that authority now or even why discount that authority on the canon of the whole of Scripture, those 7 pesky books that the vast majority of Protestants discount.

p.s. the Chicken also came first but I reckon you already knew that too.

 

[Dulcimer]

The cannon and the church may occur at the same time, but the OT books existed 400 years before the birth of Christ, whether they were gathered together or existing separately.

And while I may be considered by others to be Protestant, I have never repudiated the OT and venerated the NT above it…for I find Jesus equally in both sections. I have read Isaiah aloud to Jews and challenged them to tell me who the passage was talking about, and where it was in the Bible…and most of them told me it was referring to Jesus (clearly) and therefore had to be in the NT!

Ah, the harmony of Scripture…Jesus truly is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end!

–D <><

 

[christcnection1]

Referring to the quotes on the links you provided there is no dispute that teachings were originally oral. However they were later put into Scripture.

That was not my primary point, but I’m glad you agree.

The Bible never claims, nor did the Church define the Bible as a complete catechetical authority through which the entire deposit of faith has been safeguarded. Rather, the Bible itself validates an apostolic and universal Church authority to safeguard, decree, and govern God’s people.

If you would like me to produce these many Bible verses for you, I would be happy to do so. However, being a Sola Scripturist who dismisses this perspective, you will understandably embrace the liberality of interpreting these verses to your delight. That’s the beauty of private interpretation. There is no final authority to tell one how they must interpret the Bible.

I’m not saying it’s a terrible thing. I just can’t personally accept that as a way to live my life. To me, one can never have an assurance that certain Bible passages are being interpreted accurately if there is no God-given ecclesial authority.

With respect to tradition, the Bible also warns against traditions of men. Jesus himself refers to the traditions of the Pharisees. If the established Church of the Old Testament could teach error through tradition, how can we trust oral Tradition.

For starters, the Bible encourages oral Tradition. If we can’t trust the oral Tradition that the Bible encourages, I can’t see that we can trust the Bible either. This would be like saying that God, through His word, has encouraged “traditions of men.” Neither of us believe that SyCarl.

I agree that some “traditions” can be “traditions of men” that take us further away from the heart of our Lord. Every denomination has at least some “traditions of men.” I think the real question is, which traditions, are traditions of God? We believe they are capital ’ T ’ Traditions. Everything else can be questioned, and potentially changed.

It must also be remembered that it is not proper to read back the current Catholic definition of Tradition into the writings of the early church. If the writer was referring to the Gospel being passed on orally as tradition that is not the same as there being a separate body of Tradition along side the Scriptures. As Irenaeus notes the oral teachings were enscriptualized.

Is Irenaeus contradicting himself, or do you believe every thing Irenaeus has to say about the early church? My guess is you would say no to both.

“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (ibid., 3:3:4).

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus (the second Pope).” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Our brother in Christ has a lot more to say about the early Church SyCarl. If you are going to use him a valid authority through which to base an argument, perhaps you should take into account all his beliefs. Although we acknowledge Irenaeus as a ECF, he is not the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” described in 1 Tim 3:15

SyCarl, do you believe the Bible affirms apostolic succession? If so, should you not also believe it has continued to this present time?

That would be some trick if God decided to initiate apostolic authority and then suddenly dismiss it to usher in Sola Scriptura.

 

[SyCarl]

I was not really clear I guess in my use of Irenaeus. Of course I do not agree with all his statements and, yes, he does contadict himself in places as do many of the church fathers. For example you quoted him on the Eucharist. But he also speaks in language like Lutheran consubstantiation.

1. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4:18:5)

When I quote from the church fathers I do so for the purpose of showing that Protestant positions were not raised for the first time during the Reformation. So what I am saying is that the idea of enscripuralization had been expressed.