Bible Vision

[Little_Mary]

Today, 2,000 years after Christ’s death, the Good Book has been interpreted in thousands of different ways. That is evidenced by the 30,000+ denominations we have today. We have also heard many different arguments in support of Sola Scriptura.

So, here’ s my question: When the bible was compiled and ratified some 400 years after Christ died (by the Catholic church), what was the vision of the good men who worked so hard to compile the bible and finalize it? What did they see as the purpose of the bible?

Personally, I do not think they intended an interpretation free-for-all resulting in thousands of different denominations.

 

[Chuck]

This point - that the personal interpretation - is so prone to personal error - that conviced me to convert to the Catholic church which has the legitimate authority to explain its’ meaning.

Chuck

 

[Socrates]

I agree with the points being made here, but I always cringe when Catholics bandy about that 30,000 denominations figure. The point would be valid even if there were only 30 conflicting denominations.

I think Barrett’s logic in determining that 30,000 figure is not altogether consistent. According to the same source there are some 200 or more “denominations” within Catholicism.

I personally think that using 30,000 is a counterproductive apologetics tactic because then the debate can be derailed into disputing the number. The number itself is not all that important. The important point is that there are in fact many conflicting views all of which are held by “bible believing” Christians who adhere to sola scriptura.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Little Mary:

what was the vision of the good men who worked so hard to compile the bible and finalize it? What did they see as the purpose of the bible?

St. Paul told St. Timothy, “Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.” (1 Tim 4:13) He also said to him, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:14-17)

Justin Martyr, a convert to Christianity in about A.D. 130, wrote,
“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, chap. 67)

So, it seems to me, the Church intended the Bible to serve as the basis for the public instruction given by its teachers on living a Christian life.

 

[Little_Mary]

Socrates:

I agree with the points being made here, but I always cringe when Catholics bandy about that 30,000 denominations figure. The point would be valid even if there were only 30 conflicting denominations.

I think Barrett’s logic in determining that 30,000 figure is not altogether consistent. According to the same source there are some 200 or more “denominations” within Catholicism.

I personally think that using 30,000 is a counterproductive apologetics tactic because then the debate can be derailed into disputing the number. The number itself is not all that important. The important point is that there are in fact many conflicting views all of which are held by “bible believing” Christians who adhere to sola scriptura.

I agree. I did not mean to make the number of denominations sound important. The point is that there are many differing views, and Jesus prayed to the Father that this not happen.

What I am really asking is: What did these men have as a vision for what the bible should be used for?

They found it necessary to convene and agree on what was Sacred Scripture and what was not, right? But once that was agreed upon, what did they foresee, for many generations to come, what did they foresee the bible doing for these future generations and how they (we) would use it?

 

[amarkich]

"This point - that the personal interpretation - is so prone to personal error - that conviced me to convert to the Catholic church which has the legitimate authority to explain its’ meaning.

Chuck"

You have done something here that I am sure was unintentional, but it can be very misleading. You call the One, True Church the “Catholic church” with a lower-cased ‘c’. This is something done by Protestants and Modernists to negate the fact that the Catholic Church is the only true Church and that the Church does not have the authority to make decisions on doctrine.