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

[E.E.N.S]

In reference to any document there is an underlying assumption that the reader has reading comprehension level appropriate to the document. Also that the reader understands the language the document is written in. If these assumptions are not true, the document is gibberish to the reader.

If the reader has reading comprehension level to read the Bible, the reader has reading comprehension level to look in a dictionary and determine what the definition of “Bible” is.

Sheesh.

I don’t think that is what Kay Cee is trying to say, (correct me if I’m wrong). I think Kay Cee is trying to say that how does one know that all of the books contain within the Bible actually all belong there? After all, there is no inspired Table of Contents, am I right? How do we know that there aren’t 7 more, or 7 seven less books? Who has the authority to say, “these are inspired and none other”?

 

[mozart-250]

I don’t think that is what Kay Cee is trying to say, (correct me if I’m wrong). I think Kay Cee is trying to say that how does one know that all of the books contain within the Bible actually all belong there? After all, there is no inspired Table of Contents, am I right? How do we know that there aren’t 7 more, or 7 seven less books? Who has the authority to say, “these are inspired and none other”?

But that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is the following:

• The dictionary has a common definition of the word Bible
• Throw out those definitions which could refer to “The Fisherman’s Bible”
• The remaining definitions are inclusive of the Orthodox,Catholic,Protestant Bible
• Under such a definition of the term Bible, I believe that “All that is necessary for salvation is found in the Bible”. I do not need to know whether the Bible has 81, 73, or 66 books.
• If you operate under a different definition of the term “Bible” this statement may not be true
• If at some future point the term “Bible” is redefined, then this statement may or may not be true.

Am I making myself clear?

 

[Kay_Cee]

This is beginning to sound like "It all depends upon what the definition of “is” is.

An underlying assumption of any statement is that terms are defined. That is how we communicate in language…with a common understanding of common terms. We generally use a dictionnary to define terms (but in the case of some very technical writings a dictionnary is insufficient…but in this case it is). If we can not accept common definitions of common terms, then communication is impossible.

In the case of the term “Bible” there are three Bibles commonly used by Christendom. So if you define Bible with the common dictionary definition which includes any or all of the common Bibles used in Christendom the statement works. If you define Bible otherwise (example “The Fisherman’s Bible”) it may not work.

So the issue here is “What is your definition of the term Bible”.

It’s more “How do you know the Bible is the inerrant word of God?”

I checked my dictionary, and nowhere does it say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

Let me ask you this. How do you know the Bible is the inerrant word of God? By what means did you come to that knowledge?

It seems to me that I keep saying “You first have to know what the Bible is” and you keep saying “We already know that.”

But my point is not whether or not we know it, but **how **we know it. You had to learn it sometime, somewhere, from some source. And it is knowledge you need to have, but it is not in the Bible itself. Therefore, not everything we need to know is in the Bible.

 

[E.E.N.S]

But that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is the following:

• The dictionary has a common definition of the word Bible
• Throw out those definitions which could refer to “The Fisherman’s Bible”
• The remaining definitions are inclusive of the Orthodox,Catholic,Protestant Bible
• Under such a definition of the term Bible, I believe that “All that is necessary for salvation is found in the Bible”. I do not need to know whether the Bible has 81, 73, or 66 books.
• If you operate under a different definition of the term “Bible” this statement may not be true
• If at some future point the term “Bible” is redefined, then this statement may or may not be true.

Am I making myself clear?

Yes you are, but it does not address Kay Cee’s question. Kay Cee is not asking about the term Bible, but what is the Bible and how did we come to recognize it as it is?

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Of course the OT was already approved of by Christ Himself so that is good enough for me.

Please forgive this small digression in the midst of what seems to be a discussion on a very much higher level, but I think no one has brought this to ALLFORHIM’s attention: The OT that was “already approved of by Christ Himself,” (post #2!!!), was the Septuagint, the OT from which our NT was translated. What Martin Luther decided to change in his “version” of the Bible was based on a Jewish OT canon compiled some 200 years after Our Lord’s resurrection. Moreover, one reason the Jews established that canon was to mimimize whatever they could in the OT that could benefit the growing Christian community.

If what was “good enough” for Christ is good enough for ALLFORHIM, he’d better put down his Protestant OT and pick up ours!

Anna

 

[mozart-250]

Yes you are, but it does not address Kay Cee’s question. Kay Cee is not asking about the term Bible, but what is the Bible and how did we come to recognize it as it is?

Backtrack time.

Remember that the point of contention here is the statment that “Everything one needs for salvation is found in the Bible” (which I do believe given the common dictionnary definition of the term Bible.

So who says one need to have an understanding of how we came to recognize the Bible in order to have salvation. Sheesh, most Christians do not really know how the Bible came to be.

All they need is access to a Bible.

 

[mozart-250]

It’s more “How do you know the Bible is the inerrant word of God?”

I checked my dictionary, and nowhere does it say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

Let me ask you this. How do you know the Bible is the inerrant word of God? By what means did you come to that knowledge?

It seems to me that I keep saying “You first have to know what the Bible is” and you keep saying “We already know that.”

But my point is not whether or not we know it, but **how **we know it. You had to learn it sometime, somewhere, from some source. And it is knowledge you need to have, but it is not in the Bible itself. Therefore, not everything we need to know is in the Bible.

Again…on the same lines as my previous post, who says that one needs to believe the Bible is inerrant in order to receive salvation.

Back to my castaway on a desert island with a Bible example.

Y’all seem to be saying that poor Tom Hanks here would need to understand the history of the Bible, have it straight in his mind whether the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant Bible is correct, have the doctrine of inerrancy down…etc in order for Tom Hanks to receive salvation. Now if this is what you are saying, then we have a fundamental disagreement on what is absolutely necessary to come to faith in Jesus Christ (or whether faith in Jesus Christ is all that is necessary on day 1).

But what I am saying anyway is that all of this stuff is is not necessary. All that is necessary is for Tom Hanks to start reading about Jesus and believe what it is saying, in order for him to come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

Matthew 28: 18-20: <18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age. " > History proves the Church He was talking to became known as the Catholic Church with the See of St. Peter in Rome - He did not say He would support schism or reform or protest , He said He would be with THIS Church until the End. I do NOT believe in Bible Alone (Sola Scriptura), I DO believe in God’s Word alone. 2Thessalonians 2:15: <15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. > Matthew 4:4: <4 He said in reply, “It is written: ‘One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.’” > God’s Word is Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church as directed by the Holy Spirit. I believe in Apostolic authority and succession and the Real Presence in the Eucharist. which is why I am a Roman Catholic Christian.
Ravyn

 

[E.E.N.S]

Backtrack time.

Remember that the point of contention here is the statment that “Everything one needs for salvation is found in the Bible” (which I do believe given the common dictionnary definition of the term Bible.

So who says one need to have an understanding of how we came to recognize the Bible in order to have salvation. Sheesh, most Christians do not really know how the Bible came to be.

All they need is access to a Bible.

You are missing the essential question - where in the Bible does it say what is supposed to be in the Bible? If everything you need to know is in there, wouldn’t you also need to know that all that is in the Bible is what is inspired? You would need an external source for that - there is no other way around it.

 

[mozart-250]

You are missing the essential question - where in the Bible does it say what is supposed to be in the Bible? If everything you need to know is in there, wouldn’t you also need to know that all that is in the Bible is what is inspired? You would need an external source for that - there is no other way around it.

I know that the Bible does not tell me what is supposed to be in the Bible.

But you are missing the point that Tom Hanks as a castaway on a desert island does not need to know what is supposed to be the Bible in order to be saved. All he needs is an available Bible that he can read.

Unless you are saying that Tom Hanks needs to know what is supposed to be in the Bible in order to be saved. Then we have a separate issue.

And poor Tom here is hopeless because there is no way that he can come to saving faith in Jesus Christ with just himself and his Bible.

 

[Grateful4mercy]

I have a couple of castaway questions too, for whoever would like to take it on.

1. What if only part of the Bible survived the crash? Could he still be saved by it?
2. I think this has been asked 10 times already, but never quite answered. I’m going to attempt to re-word it a little and see if this helps. What would cause Tom Hanks to even know what he was reading? If he had two books with him and tried to read the bible like a normal person would read a book he would never make it out of Genesis. He would throw the thing back in the ocean and grab whatever other book washed up with him. Somebody would have to:

a)explain to him that he had a soul
b)explain to him he needed to ‘save’ it somehow
c)give him the book and tell him what it is and what its used for

Simply being in possession of an item does not automatically give one total knowledge of its function or use. That’s why we created instruction manuals…and the Magisterium.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Again…on the same lines as my previous post, who says that one needs to believe the Bible is inerrant in order to receive salvation.

Back to my castaway on a desert island with a Bible example.

Y’all seem to be saying that poor Tom Hanks here would need to understand the history of the Bible, have it straight in his mind whether the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant Bible is correct, have the doctrine of inerrancy down…etc in order for Tom Hanks to receive salvation. Now if this is what you are saying, then we have a fundamental disagreement on what is absolutely necessary to come to faith in Jesus Christ (or whether faith in Jesus Christ is all that is necessary on day 1).

But what I am saying anyway is that all of this stuff is is not necessary. All that is necessary is for Tom Hanks to start reading about Jesus and believe what it is saying, in order for him to come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Okay, let’s use your example, but let’s modify it a bit.

Let’s suppose our castaway Tom Hanks was born on the island. Let’s further suppose that the only other people there were his parents, and although they taught him to read (perhaps by drawing letters in the sand), they taught him nothing whatsoever about God. The parents later died, leaving him alone on the island.

Now suppose one day a watertight package washes ashore. Within it is a Bible (whichever Bible you choose).

And let’s further suppose there are two other books in the watertight package. One is the Book of Mormon. The other is the Koran.

*Upon what basis would our castaway decide that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and the other two books aren’t? *

This is a very important question because, you see, if he ends up thinking it’s the Koran that’s the inerrent word of God (perhaps because the Koran claims divine inspiration), will he believe Jesus is God? Will he believe Jesus can save us from our sins?

You said, “All that is necessary is for Tom Hanks is to start reading about Jesus and believe what he is saying in order for him to come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ.”

It’s the part I bolded in your statement that is the problem our castaway friend would have. Why should he believe what Christ is saying if he doesn’t believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God?

 

[E.E.N.S]

I know that the Bible does not tell me what is supposed to be in the Bible.

But you are missing the point that Tom Hanks as a castaway on a desert island does not need to know what is supposed to be the Bible in order to be saved. All he needs is an available Bible that he can read.

Unless you are saying that Tom Hanks needs to know what is supposed to be in the Bible in order to be saved. Then we have a separate issue.

And poor Tom here is hopeless because there is no way that he can come to saving faith in Jesus Christ with just himself and his Bible.

How do you know that when Tom Hanks reads the bible he will be saved? How do we know what is in the Bible is even true? THAT is the question you were asked and you responded like you were answering the question you are formulating. Had you answered the question that was asked of you I would not have chimed in, but still you continue to answer a different question than what is being asked.

 

[mozart-250]

How do you know that when Tom Hanks reads the bible he will be saved? How do we know what is in the Bible is even true? THAT is the question you were asked and you responded like you were answering the question you are formulating. Had you answered the question that was asked of you I would not have chimed in, but still you continue to answer a different question than what is being asked.

In answer to your first question, I don’t know that he will be. There are no guarantees. He could start reading and decide it is all rubbish. He also could start reading and become captivated by the person of Jesus Christ. He also could start reading about the death and resurrection of our Lord and strangely enough find it credible. He also could read the book of Acts and decide to become a believer much like the early church he is reading about.

But in answer to your second question…Tom Hanks does not have to start reading the Bible with the assumption that it is true. All he needs to do is start reading the Bible.

As he reads…he can then make a decision as to the credibility of what he is reading. In such a situation he would have to make a decision on whether what he is reading concerning the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord is credible or rubbish.

Besides, there is also the role of the Holy Spirit that is not being factored into this equation. The Holy Spirit can make what seems incredible in our minds (people rising from the dead) strangely credible.

If you think about it…this works in other spheres of life. If I read for example an autobiographical account of Mozart I do not need to know before hand whether this account is true. I can read and make a determination as to whether the sources are credible and authoritative. If the account seems credible and authoritative, I would be inclined to believe it.

 

[mozart-250]

I have a couple of castaway questions too, for whoever would like to take it on.

1. What if only part of the Bible survived the crash? Could he still be saved by it?

Dunno. If it was one page of Leviticus doubtful

1. I think this has been asked 10 times already, but never quite answered. I’m going to attempt to re-word it a little and see if this helps. What would cause Tom Hanks to even know what he was reading? If he had two books with him and tried to read the bible like a normal person would read a book he would never make it out of Genesis. He would throw the thing back in the ocean and grab whatever other book washed up with him.

Yup…there is no guarantee that he will…it is just that he could.

If it were me, I’d probably get bored with the beginning…skip to the end…and then maybe go to the middle. However if I were intrigued enough by the book, I would eventually figure it out.

Somebody would have to:

a)explain to him that he had a soul
b)explain to him he needed to ‘save’ it somehow

Hey he doesn’t need to know and figure out a whole lot to be able to come to saving faith in Jesus Christ. Sheesh…the thief on the cross had nobody to explain to him anything and he came to saving faith. You would think that somebody reading an account of the thief of the cross (along with the death and resurrection of Jesus Chris that the thief on the cross experienced) could say the same prayer that the same thief said and come to the same saving faith that the thief received. You seem to think that this can not happen. I would like to know why.

c)give him the book and tell him what it is and what its used for

Simply being in possession of an item does not automatically give one total knowledge of its function or use. That’s why we created instruction manuals…and the Magisterium.

Yup Tom Hanks (like the thief on the cross) does not need to know how to read the Bible like a pro. But God in his infinite mercy can give Tom Hanks saving faith just he and his Bible alone on the island.

 

[Grateful4mercy]

If you think about it…this works in other spheres of life. If I read for example an autobiographical account of Mozart I do not need to know before hand whether this account is true. I can read and make a determination as to whether the sources are credible and authoritative. If the account seems credible and authoritative, I would be inclined to believe it.

How exactly would you know whether Mozart was a real person or a work of fiction?

And in order to determine credibility and authority you would need to use an outside source as a comparison.

 

[E.E.N.S]

In answer to your first question, I don’t know that he will be. There are no guarantees. He could start reading and decide it is all rubbish. He also could start reading and become captivated by the person of Jesus Christ. He also could start reading about the death and resurrection of our Lord and strangely enough find it credible. He also could read the book of Acts and decide to become a believer much like the early church he is reading about.

But in answer to your second question…Tom Hanks does not have to start reading the Bible with the assumption that it is true. All he needs to do is start reading the Bible.

As he reads…he can then make a decision as to the credibility of what he is reading. In such a situation he would have to make a decision on whether what he is reading concerning the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord is credible or rubbish.

Besides, there is also the role of the Holy Spirit that is not being factored into this equation. The Holy Spirit can make what seems incredible in our minds (people rising from the dead) strangely credible.

If you think about it…this works in other spheres of life. If I read for example an autobiographical account of Mozart I do not need to know before hand whether this account is true. I can read and make a determination as to whether the sources are credible and authoritative. If the account seems credible and authoritative, I would be inclined to believe it.

The question isn’t about credibility, it’s about how any given person could pick up the Bible without any outside knowledge and come to the conclusion that it is anything more than an odd work of fiction. You are starting with the predisposition that he is confronted with it as such and is at a crossroads to whether or not he should believe it and put his faith into it. If you are having a difficult time understanding this question, then I apologize for not making it clearer, however Kay Cee puts forth another question (related) that seems to be stated rather clearly and shows yet another issue with the topic at hand, however it also starts with the predisposition that these books claim to be the written word of God - and that there is even a God in the first place. What happens when an individual (Tom Hanks for example) who has never heard of God, nor even the concept, and picks up this book haven no clue that it is anything more than a work of fiction? No one in their right mind would pick up a book and believe that it is the word of God (which the Bible only indirectly states, being that it is a collection of “books”) just because it says so, no any book could say that (and some do) but that does not make it so.

 

[mozart-250]

Okay, let’s use your example, but let’s modify it a bit.

Oh…goodie…another hypothetical

Let’s suppose our castaway Tom Hanks was born on the island. Let’s further suppose that the only other people there were his parents, and although they taught him to read (perhaps by drawing letters in the sand), they taught him nothing whatsoever about God. The parents later died, leaving him alone on the island.

Now suppose one day a watertight package washes ashore. Within it is a Bible (whichever Bible you choose).

And let’s further suppose there are two other books in the watertight package. One is the Book of Mormon. The other is the Koran.

*Upon what basis would our castaway decide that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and the other two books aren’t? *

This is a very important question because, you see, if he ends up thinking it’s the Koran that’s the inerrent word of God (perhaps because the Koran claims divine inspiration), will he believe Jesus is God? Will he believe Jesus can save us from our sins?

You said, “All that is necessary is for Tom Hanks is to start reading about Jesus and believe what he is saying in order for him to come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ.”

It’s the part I bolded in your statement that is the problem our castaway friend would have. Why should he believe what Christ is saying if he doesn’t believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God?

Oh goodie…a new wrinkle.

It does present a complication, but not an insurmountable one.

I suppose He would just have to start reading them and make a decision on what is credible and what is not. One thing he has plenty of on this island is time.

But anyway, someone telling him the Bible is the inerrant word of God does little in this scenario. He would still have to decide whether the person telling him this is credible or not.

Besides we overlook the whole role of the Holy Spirit in the conversion process. Maybe the Holy Spirit is influencing Tom Hanks to conclude that the Biblical account of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is true while the Book of Mormon is rubbish.

 

[Grateful4mercy]

Dunno. If it was one page of Leviticus doubtful

Yup…there is no guarantee that he will…it is just that he could.

If it were me, I’d probably get bored with the beginning…skip to the end…and then maybe go to the middle. However if I were intrigued enough by the book, I would eventually figure it out.

Hey he doesn’t need to know and figure out a whole lot to be able to come to saving faith in Jesus Christ. Sheesh…the thief on the cross had nobody to explain to him anything and he came to saving faith. You would think that somebody reading an account of the thief of the cross (along with the death and resurrection of Jesus Chris that the thief on the cross experienced) could say the same prayer that the same thief said and come to the same saving faith that the thief received. You seem to think that this can not happen. I would like to know why.

Yup Tom Hanks (like the thief on the cross) does not need to know how to read the Bible like a pro. But God in his infinite mercy can give Tom Hanks saving faith just he and his Bible alone on the island.

I’m pretty sure the thief knew Jesus, he obviously recognized him and knew of his reputation as the messiah. And it’s also obvious the bad thief knew him as well. Why does that seem to matter? Neither of them had a bible

 

[mozart-250]

The question isn’t about credibility, it’s about how any given person could pick up the Bible without any outside knowledge and come to the conclusion that it is anything more than an odd work of fiction.

Let me answer this with a hypothetical. Say Tom Hanks received another book entitled “An Authorized Biography of Mozart”. He has no other knowledge of Mozart or the author.

Then he would just have to start reading the book and make a determination as to whether it is credible. We do this all the time in real life. We read stuff and make a decision on its credibility based on what we are reading.

You are starting with the predisposition that he is confronted with it as such and is at a crossroads to whether or not he should believe it and put his faith into it. If you are having a difficult time understanding this question, then I apologize for not making it clearer, however Kay Cee puts forth another question (related) that seems to be stated rather clearly and shows yet another issue with the topic at hand, however it also starts with the predisposition that these books claim to be the written word of God - and that there is even a God in the first place. What happens when an individual (Tom Hanks for example) who has never heard of God, nor even the concept, and picks up this book haven no clue that it is anything more than a work of fiction? No one in their right mind would pick up a book and believe that it is the word of God (which the Bible only indirectly states, being that it is a collection of “books”) just because it says so, no any book could say that (and some do) but that does not make it so.

But who says he has to make a decision on whether this is the Word of God. Believe it or not when I came to Christ I had no idea whether the Bible was the word of God. I just found the Biblical account of Christ to be credible.

You seem to be saying that it is impossible for Tom Hanks to open up the Bible with no assumptions about its origin…read the account of the death and resurrection of our Lord…read the account of the thief on the cross…say the same prayer that the thief on the cross said…and receive the same gift of salvation the thief on the cross did. I would like to know why.