Jesus without the Bible?

[mercygate]

Hi,
Can I list the reasons without any backlash?
The two main reasons is I don believe the CC is the One and only True Church and I feel the CC misintrepreted the Scripture referring to Peter as Pope hence all the Apostolic Succession.

Minor reasons:
Marion doctrines

Implicit in Scripture and believed by all the major reformers.

praying to dead saints

Dead? The saints are not dead. God is the “God of the living.”

purgatory

Lots of scriptural support.

salvation message(actually that would be a big one)

Huh? We are saved by the Passion, death & resurrection of Jesus Christ. You godda problem widdat?

confesssion

Since confession is explicitly counseled in the letter of James and since Jesus specifically transmitted the power of forgiving (and retaining) sins to the Apostles, Catholics always scratch their heads when confession is raised as non-scriptural.

 

[TobyLue]

The OP quotes

The Catholic Church started without the Bible**. Sacred scripture (the Bible) became part or our sacred tradition. **The logic is simple and the truth follows (or maybe visa versa).

and AFH quotes

I feel the CC misintrepreted the Scripture

Please read the original post. Sacred Scripture (the Bible) became part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. This is a poor analogy but remember Mozart? He would have complete operas, musical scores in his head and then he would write them down without any errors. Do you think that he would write down something different than what was in his head? Are you going to tell me that the CC was teaching and preaching the message of Jesus, passed on by Him to His apostles and the apostles passed them on down to their disciples, then when the Church compiled the scriptures into book form, She agreed to canonize something that was totally against what it was teaching? Sacred Scripture could not back then and does not now go against the teachings of the CC. Unfortunately, many people read scripture on their own and accuse the church of misinterpreting scripture when in actuality it is they who are doing the misinterpretation.

 

[TobyLue]

My central authority is the Holy Spirit and I trust him to guide me to the truth.

I have seen this quoted many times that “I trust the Holy Sprit”. And the CC has NOT trusted the Holy Spirit for 2000 years? Did not Jesus tell us to listen to the Church?
Yes, by all mean we should trust the Holy Spirit, but if what I perceive to be the Holy Spirit guiding me and it is going against 2000 years of teachings that the Church has had, then we must stop and question if it is really the Holy Spirit, or my own erroneous feelings, or some other spirit. Many say that they do not trust man, as in the CC, but the Holy Spirit. But as man, we have to discern what the Holy Spirit is telling us. So we are trusting ourselves in our discernment and who are we but man.

 

[simbagizmo]

Without the Bible, God’s unchanging and inerrrant Word, how would you guard against false teaching within the Christian Church?

 

[mercygate]

Without the Bible, God’s unchanging and inerrrant Word, how would you guard against false teaching within the Christian Church?

Think about it: we HAVE the Bible, yet still there is plenty of false teaching out there – most particularly among those bodies that claim Scripture alone as their source of authority. The Scriptures are not a cookbook. The guidance of the Holy Spirit, in union with the apostles is absolutely necesary for maintaining fidelitiy. Anybody read the third letter of John lately? The whole issue there is: Who are you? Do I know you? Who told you that? Why should I believe what you say? And the answer is that John is the ‘real deal,’ not: “It says here in the Bible . . .”

 

[simbagizmo]

Think about it: we HAVE the Bible, yet still there is plenty of false teaching out there

I never said there would not be false teachers if we have the Bible. And I am sure you would agree we would still have false teachers if God did not give us the Bible. My question is how would you determine false teaching from your church leaders if you did not have the Bible?

– most particularly among those bodies that claim Scripture alone as their source of authority.

I would agree there are churches that have false teaching and use the Bible to promote this teaching. But again, without the Bible to show the false teaching, how would you know?

The Scriptures are not a cookbook.

Agreed. It is the message of Salvation. The Good news.

The guidance of the Holy Spirit, in union with the apostles is absolutely necesary for maintaining fidelitiy.

I would say it is the Holy Spirit in union with the Holy Word of God

Anybody read the third letter of John lately? The whole issue there is: Who are you? Do I know you? Who told you that? Why should I believe what you say? And the answer is that John is the ‘real deal,’ not: “It says here in the Bible . . .”

This is the same John that wrote the Gospel and Revelations, and it sounds like you are indicating that John is saying, “Do not worry about Scripture, just listen to me”. But I trust this is just a misunderstanding on my part. So can you please explain this point.

Also, can you please answer my question. Without the Bible, how do you, personnally, determine if your chuch leader is teaching truth or not?

 

[mercygate]

I never said there would not be false teachers if we have the Bible. And I am sure you would agree we would still have false teachers if God did not give us the Bible. My question is how would you determine false teaching from your church leaders if you did not have the Bible?

This is a great point. But it’s all kind of down the food chain from the original post because not only DO we have the Bible, but it is the centerpiece of all Catholic theology. The point of this thread, for Catholics, is that the preaching came first. It was the apostolic witness which proclaimed the Good News before reed ever scratched papyrus.

I would agree there are churches that have false teaching and use the Bible to promote this teaching. But again, without the Bible to show the false teaching, how would you know?

I would answer this as above, adding that there would be no guarantee that my personal discernment of the truth of the Scripture, unaided by the matrix of the entire Christian experience contained in Sacred Tradition, would carry no more weight than the presumed false teaching.

I would say it is the Holy Spirit in union with the Holy Word of God

Catholics would add that the Word of God is broader than written Scripture and is also contained in the living Apostolic teaching, which must never contradict Scripture.

This is the same John that wrote the Gospel and Revelations, and it sounds like you are indicating that John is saying, “Do not worry about Scripture, just listen to me”. But I trust this is just a misunderstanding on my part. So can you please explain this point.

Read that letter; it’s short. It is not about Scripture at all. It is about a Church leader who mistrusts John and is speaking against him. In verse 9, John refers to something he had written to the church (but we don’t have it today, so apparently the writings of the apostles, eyewitnesses to the Resurrection, were not universally esteemed as sacred). Later in verse 13, John states: I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink.

Namely, the Word of God was spread and endorsed through personal witness.

That is what Apostolic Tradition is in Catholic and Orthodox circles. Of course we venerate Scripture above all other sources of revelation. But without the human, face-to-face component, the book, by itself, is not fully comprehenisble.

Also, can you please answer my question. Without the Bible, how do you, personnally, determine if your chuch leader is teaching truth or not?

Again, the question begs the issue. We do have the Bible.

But I personally do not have to determine if my church leader is teaching the truth or not. My earthly Church leader stands in a chain of Apostolic service and witness, surrounded by brother witnesses of the Word who stand in that same Apostolic line, and he is protected by the particular charism promised to the Church by Jesus Christ himself.

One of the reasons I am Catholic today is that I found the Scriptural mandate to Apostolic community so compelling that I could no longer deny it.

 

[mo3]

Also, can you please answer my question. Without the Bible, how do you, personnally, determine if your chuch leader is teaching truth or not?

This is a very good question. But also add this question: How do you personally determine if your translation of the Bible is truth or not? This is where it can force one to look at either a man made tradition of teaching and translating the Bible or Sacred Tradition of teaching and translating the Bible. Thanks for your posts.

 

[simbagizmo]

This is a great point. But it’s all kind of down the food chain from the original post because not only DO we have the Bible, but it is the centerpiece of all Catholic theology. The point of this thread, for Catholics, is that the preaching came first. It was the apostolic witness which proclaimed the Good News before reed ever scratched papyrus.

Here is the original Post that formed the basis of my question. I will try this again based on the original post.

mo3:

Can Evangelicals conceive of teaching and believing in Jesus without the Bible? How is the history of Evangelical theology taught? If the bible did not exist for hundreds of years after Christ’s death, then how do Evangelicals explain how early Christians knew of the total teachings of Jesus Christ without the Bible?

The Catholic Church started without the Bible. Sacred scripture (the Bible) became part or our sacred tradition. The logic is simple and the truth follows (or maybe visa versa).

I will handle questions asked after I comment on the statements made

mo3:

The Catholic Church started without the Bible.

The RCC did not start without the Bible. It was theTanakh, the Old Testament. When Jesus was teaching, he was teaching from the Bible. When the Apostles were teaching, it was based on the Bible. The Gospels and the New Testament writings has its foundations based on the Bible. So when you say that the preaching came first, I would have to disagree. Now I do agree that the writings of the Gospels and the New Testament were included to the Bible under the direction of God, to further expound on the original Bible for us, so that we would have the complete Word of God. But again, the Bible did surely exist prior to the formation of the RCC and was the foundation of proof that Jesus Christ is the savior taught by Jesus and the apostles.

mo3:

Sacred scripture (the Bible) became part or our sacred tradition. The logic is simple and the truth follows (or maybe visa versa).

Since the Bible did exist prior to the RCC, this logic does not work.

Now for the Questions asked.

mo3:

Can Evangelicals conceive of teaching and believing in Jesus without the Bible?

No, at least not the Scripture based churches. Cannot speak for all Protestants though.

mo3:

How is the history of Evangelical theology taught?

From Scripture, again at least from Bible teaching churches. And again I cannot speak for all Protestant churches though.

Then this is what led to my question. If you believe that the Bible did not exist during the time Jesus was here and the apostles teaching, how would people determine the validity of Jesus claim to be the savior and how would people determine the validity of the apostles teaching?

Then the next logical question I put out for you is, how do you determine the validity of your teachers teaching if you do not constantly refer back to Scripture to test the teaching.

2 Timothy 3
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Again, this verse states that Scripture did in fact exist at the time of the apostles teaching. And is to be used to validate teaching. I am not saying that oral traditions are not valid. This verse just states the Scriptures should be used for reproof and correction of any other types of teaching.

Read that letter; it’s short. It is not about Scripture at all. It is about a Church leader who mistrusts John and is speaking against him.

I did read it many times. And it is about a church leader that is teaching false doctrine. You are correct that he is not heeding John’s words, but it is the false teachings that is the problem. And this is my point exactly. Without the Bible, how would do you determine false teaching?

Namely, the Word of God was spread and endorsed through personal witness.

Agreed. And this is mainly how it is still spread today.

But I personally do not have to determine if my church leader is teaching the truth or not. My earthly Church leader stands in a chain of Apostolic service and witness, surrounded by brother witnesses of the Word who stand in that same Apostolic line, and he is protected by the particular charism promised to the Church by Jesus Christ himself.

I am not going to debate you on this, because this is your choice. I would just like you to remember 2 Timothy 3:16 and please read Luke 13.

 

[mercygate]

The RCC did not start without the Bible. It was theTanakh, the Old Testament. When Jesus was teaching, he was teaching from the Bible. When the Apostles were teaching, it was based on the Bible. The Gospels and the New Testament writings has its foundations based on the Bible.

This is absolutely true. And when some of us Catholics claim that there was no Bible, just because the Jewish canon had not been closed at the time of Jesus, it drives me nuts.

So when you say that the preaching came first, I would have to disagree.

Certainly the preaching of the Resurrection antedated any written gospel by about two decades.

Now I do agree that the writings of the Gospels and the New Testament were included to the Bible under the direction of God, to further expound on the original Bible for us, so that we would have the complete Word of God. But again, the Bible did surely exist prior to the formation of the RCC and was the foundation of proof that Jesus Christ is the savior taught by Jesus and the apostles.

As Paul tells us of the Bereans.

I did read it [3 John] many times. And it is about a church leader that is teaching false doctrine. You are correct that he is not heeding John’s words, but it is the false teachings that is the problem. And this is my point exactly. Without the Bible, how would do you determine false teaching?

From the letter alone, all we see is a power struggle. There is not a syllable in it about false doctrine. You can read that letter in another way also: that Diotrephes is protecting his flock from an intruder whose testimony he does not recognize.

I am not going to debate you on this, because this is your choice. I would just like you to remember 2 Timothy 3:16 and please read Luke 13.

2 Tim 3:16 is in the Catholic Bible also.

Actually, when I look at the OP, I think the real question was: How do Christians whose sole rule of faith is Scripture deal with the first 1500 years of Christian history? The assertion that “the Bible” didn’t exist for hundreds of years can only refer to the closing of the canon. Even without a canon, except for a few books, including some we now consider pivotal, such as Hebrews, Revelation, and 2 Peter, there was general agreement on what constituted the authentic writings of the Christian community. Closing the canon locked out several “gospels” and other oddities that were circulating but that needed to be identified as not fully trustworthy or just plain spurious.

As for the indefectibility of the Church, this is a doctrine held equally by the Orthodox and the Roman Churches. It is a biblical doctrine. The distinction between the Orthodox and Catholics on this is that Catholics see that indefectibility as focused in the Bishop of Rome based on clear Scriptural precept. 'Nother thread.

 

[mo3]

The RCC did not start without the Bible. It was the Tanakh, the Old Testament.

I think you have made my point, the Old Testament existed at that time, not the Bible. If you can provide proof that the term “Bible” was used during the time of Jesus and the Apostles, I will consider it. However, I don’t think we need to debate a point that we probably agree on and it would get us off track for this thread. Maybe for clarity the OT should have said “New Testament” instead of Bible, and for this I apologize.

If the vast majority of teachings by Jesus and the Apostle were oral teachings, and we know the NT does not include all oral teachings, then why would oral teachings not be valid? How can one know the total teachings of Jesus Christ if they are not detailed in the NT?

 

[rtconstant]

I think that sometimes people look at the Bible from a modern perspective. During the time of the early church the most available sacred scripture would have the been Septuagint. The letters of the apostles took the better part of the first century to be completed and then were sporadically available. So really only the greek OT scriptures were in wide use.

So while it’s technically true that the early church had sacred scripture to say that they had the teachings of Christ readily available in an authentic written form is just not possible. The teachings of Christ were recieved for the most part orally from the followers of Christ. These followers gave the early Church the lens through which to understand scripture not vice versa.

Actually the early Church’s reliance on OT scripture really kind of proves the point. The early church used the scriptures that the Jewish people use today and yet had a totally different way of interpreting what it said. Why would this be? The answer to that is oral tradition. The Jews did (and do) view sacred scripture through the traditions of their teachers while Christians viewed scripture through the traditions of their own teachers.

In truth we use scripture the same way today. With or without scripture Christians believe in the Trinity this is a teaching of tradition. Does sacred scripture justify this? Yes both Old and New Testaments give justification to this belief. However, it doesn’t do so directly. We simply know that by the teaching passed down too us that scripture does indeed reveal this. The jewish people can read the same passages and draw totally different ideas because of their own traditions.

The Bible justifies the faith that we already have. God and God alone is the giver of Church teaching. The Bible gives us a record of His grace and work with humanity.

If all scripture was to be removed from the earth the Church would continue and grow. The Bible is a gift, a treasure, a blessing and a luxury. We should give God thanks that we have it and take every advantage of it being here. Let’s just not put the cart before the horse.

 

[mercygate]

I think that sometimes people look at the Bible from a modern perspective. During the time of the early church the most available sacred scripture would have the been Septuagint. The letters of the apostles took the better part of the first century to be completed and then were sporadically available. So really only the greek OT scriptures were in wide use.

So while it’s technically true that the early church had sacred scripture to say that they had the teachings of Christ readily available in an authentic written form is just not possible. The teachings of Christ were recieved for the most part orally from the followers of Christ. These followers gave the early Church the lens through which to understand scripture not vice versa.

Actually the early Church’s reliance on OT scripture really kind of proves the point. The early church used the scriptures that the Jewish people use today and yet had a totally different way of interpreting what it said. Why would this be? The answer to that is oral tradition. The Jews did (and do) view sacred scripture through the traditions of their teachers while Christians viewed scripture through the traditions of their own teachers.

In truth we use scripture the same way today. With or without scripture Christians believe in the Trinity this is a teaching of tradition. Does sacred scripture justify this? Yes both Old and New Testaments give justification to this belief. However, it doesn’t do so directly. We simply know that by the teaching passed down too us that scripture does indeed reveal this. The jewish people can read the same passages and draw totally different ideas because of their own traditions.

The Bible justifies the faith that we already have. God and God alone is the giver of Church teaching. The Bible gives us a record of His grace and work with humanity.

If all scripture was to be removed from the earth the Church would continue and grow. The Bible is a gift, a treasure, a blessing and a luxury. We should give God thanks that we have it and take every advantage of it being here. Let’s just not put the cart before the horse.

This is a beautiful post! Thank you RT.

 

[rr1213]

Can Evangelicals conceive of teaching and believing in Jesus without the Bible? How is the history of Evangelical theology taught? If the bible did not exist for hundreds of years after Christ’s death, then how do Evangelicals explain how early Christians knew of the total teachings of Jesus Christ without the Bible?

The Catholic Church started without the Bible. Sacred scripture (the Bible) became part or our sacred tradition. The logic is simple and the truth follows (or maybe visa versa).

The earliest Christians were taught by the Apostles. These same Apostles (for the most part) were the authors of the letters that were later canonized into the Bible. However, these letters (obviously) were written by the Apostles during their lifetimes, during the time of their teaching. The early Church thus did have written Scripture on which to rely, even if it had not yet been canonized. All of this, of course, is in addition to the Old Testament as others have mentioned. The Protestant viewpoint is that if it was important enough for us to remember, and especially if it has a bearing on our salvation, then it is contained in the Written Word. That is why when the Catholic Holy Tradition goes beyond the Written Word, you leave Protestants behind.

 

[NotWorthy]

Once the eyewitnesses left the scene, if they didn’t write it down, or have someone very intimate with their teachings write it down (ie. Luke traveled with Paul, Mark with Peter), then how accurate would it be.

The Creation Account was kept in Oral form for 1500 years and nowhere does there show any contradiction in them.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Can Evangelicals conceive of teaching and believing in Jesus without the Bible? How is the history of Evangelical theology taught? If the bible did not exist for hundreds of years after Christ’s death, then how do Evangelicals explain how early Christians knew of the total teachings of Jesus Christ without the Bible?

The Catholic Church started without the Bible. Sacred scripture (the Bible) became part or our sacred tradition. The logic is simple and the truth follows (or maybe visa versa).

What this doesn’t explain, is how Catholics propose to find quotations from the deuterocanonical books in the (allegedly non-existent) New Testament.​

Most people would find it difficult to find references to books, in books that did not exist.

What did Jesus quote in Matthew & Luke 4 ? The OT. That existed in His time. The Fathers very often quoted from the Scriptures - their quotations are an important source of information for variant textual readings in both Testaments. Isn’t Romans 15.4 in Catholic Bibles ? Of course it is:

Rom 15:1 We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves;
Rom 15:2 let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to edify him.
Rom 15:3 For Christ did not please himself; but, as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached thee fell on me.”
Rom 15:4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope.

It is simply untrue to say there was no Bible until the formal canonisation of the 27-book canon of the NT; that was the final step in a long process of selection, recognition, debate, discussion, disagreement. It does not exactly increase confidence in the excellence of Tradition, that different Fathers & Churches differed over the canonicity of various books. The lack of a 27-book canon =/= the lack of 27 books already recognised in much or all of the Church to be inspired. The Church cannot confer inspiration - she can only recognise & acknowledge it (This BTW is Catholic doctrine) .

To answer your question:

How did people know before the Bible was canonised what Christ taught ? Tradition, as passages in Paul suggest - but that is no reason for having tradition later on, because all the tradition God wished us to accept as authoritative, is now in the Bible.

The messages of the prophets, at the least - leaving other parts of the Bible out of the question for the moment - were authoritative: Jeremiah 36 did not have to wait to be edited, recognised as “defiling the hands”, or as canonical, to be the word of the LORD to an unrighteous king of Judah; it was the word of God from the instant that the prophet received it. It was pronounced to the king because it was already a Divine word, with God’s own authority. The Church had absolutely nothing to do with its authority - except to recognise it for what it is: the word of of God, which has divine power to cast down strongholds, and to take every thought captive for Jesus Christ.

Men do not judge the word of God - the word of God judges us.

Even more important than tradition, is the guidance of the Holy Spirit, without whom all else in the Church would be utterly useless, even dangerous. So the Holy Spirit guided the Church to select what He had inspired, & only that, to be formally canonised. And what the Church has selected, is given to the Church to be the supreme judge of all controversies in faith. Tradition had to “decrease, that” Scripture “might increase” - just as John the Baptist “did himself out of a job”, precisely by being faithful to his calling, so tradition has “done itself out of a job”, by doing the work in the Church for which it was intended.

Whatever the extent of the canon acknowledged by each NT writer, there was definitely something to refer to. Jude may have regarded 1 Enoch as Scripture, & may or may not have been alone in this (some of the earlier Fathers regarded the Book of Jubilees as Scripture); whatever the uncertainties, nothing can alter the fact that there were oracles of God to refer to; as is clear from Philo, Josephus, & many others, as well as St.Paul & the rest of the NT, & the Fathers. ##

 

[simbagizmo]

I think you have made my point, the Old Testament existed at that time, not the Bible. If you can provide proof that the term “Bible” was used during the time of Jesus and the Apostles, I will consider it.

I would just say what we now call the Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible, Tanakh. But you are correct that this is a mute point and off the subject.

If the vast majority of teachings by Jesus and the Apostle were oral teachings, and we know the NT does not include all oral teachings, then why would oral teachings not be valid? How can one know the total teachings of Jesus Christ if they are not detailed in the NT?

I am not saying that oral teachings are invalid. Scripture makes reference to oral teachings from the apostles, and of course Jesus, all over the place. My only point is that oral teachings, and any other teachings, should and must be held against the Holy Word of God, that God had written for us. God makes this clear in 2 Timothy 3:16. When I go to chuch on sunday, my pastor gives oral teachings every day I attend. I would assume yours does also. And John tells the following:

1John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

My question is how do you determine a teaching is a tradition of men or a tradition of God, if not using the unchanging inerrant written Word of God as the standard?

Mat 15:2 “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”
Mat 15:3 And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Mat 15:5 "But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,”
Mat 15:6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Mar 7:8 “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
Mar 7:9 He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

Mar 7:13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."

Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

 

[rtconstant]

Do we know that all traditions are beyond all doubt of God? No, but then again we wouldn’t if we use the Bible as the final standard either. Hence thousands of denominations. However, the traditions that the Catholic Church follows are the traditions that allowed the Church to find out which books of the Bible were infallible.

Remember that even the OT was not really set in stone the early days. The Hebrew scriptures were not set until a few centuries after Christ. However, the Church’s teachings passed on too us by the Christ, His apostles and the Holy Spirit gave us the insight to know what was sacred scripture and what wasn’t. So at least in the early days it was tradition that helped define what was in fact biblical.

When we read the Bible with out the lens of tradition we’ll likely faulter. Again look at all of the denominations. The teachings of the Church give us the insight too understand the sacred scripture. Then in turn Sacred Scripture enriches our lives and deepings our understanding of Christ’s teachings.

The truth is that if we at this point decide that all of the Church’s traditions are up in the air until the Bible difinatively proves them we may as well close the doors on all Christian Churches. To many of the core beliefs of all Christians today are to broadly defined in the Bible. If we can’t honestly hold to a tradition unless the Bible emphatically states it (and yes it would need to be emphatically stated in language that allows no argument) then really most of the doctrines of all Christian Churches should be considered to be in false.

So while I can understand why you might feel uncomfortable with that level of trust you can console yourself to the fact that within the span of 2000 years the Church and her traditions haven’t really let us down.

 

[simbagizmo]

Do we know that all traditions are beyond all doubt of God? No, but then again we wouldn’t if we use the Bible as the final standard either. Hence thousands of denominations. However, the traditions that the Catholic Church follows are the traditions that allowed the Church to find out which books of the Bible were infallible.

I have said this before, but what part did God play is determining Scripture? I would counter this by saying that God determined the Holy Scriptures inspiring Christian men.

Remember that even the OT was not really set in stone the early days. The Hebrew scriptures were not set until a few centuries after Christ. However, the Church’s teachings passed on too us by the Christ, His apostles and the Holy Spirit gave us the insight to know what was sacred scripture and what wasn’t. So at least in the early days it was tradition that helped define what was in fact biblical.

The Hebrew Bible was recognized as complete in 450BC by councels of rabbis.

When we read the Bible with out the lens of tradition we’ll likely faulter. Again look at all of the denominations. The teachings of the Church give us the insight too understand the sacred scripture. Then in turn Sacred Scripture enriches our lives and deepings our understanding of Christ’s teachings.

I just think this reasoning is backwards. Following traditions without the lens of Scripture will cause a us to faulter. And I would also point to the denominations as proof of this. Using traditions to drive the teaching of scripture is exactly what Jesus was ripping the Jewish leaders for.

Mar 7:8 “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
Mar 7:9 He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition

Mar 7:13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."

Mat 15:3 And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Mat 15:6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

The truth is that if we at this point decide that all of the Church’s traditions are up in the air until the Bible difinatively proves them we may as well close the doors on all Christian Churches.

What I am saying is that all traditions must be held up to Scripture. Scripture is the standard of all teachings. If the tradition fails to be supported by Scripture, it is a false teaching. Jesus’s teachings are constantly being referred by to Scripture. Many times in the Gospels and the New Testament the scriptures are referred to in order to support the traditions being taught. Paul states in 2 Timothy 3:16, under the inspiration of God, that All Scripture, not traditions, are profitable for reproof, correction, teaching and training.

To many of the core beliefs of all Christians today are to broadly defined in the Bible. If we can’t honestly hold to a tradition unless the Bible emphatically states it (and yes it would need to be emphatically stated in language that allows no argument) then really most of the doctrines of all Christian Churches should be considered to be in false.

Though I do not know all doctrines of all Christian Churches, I would believe that most would be considered false. My reason for believing this is because Jesus says so in Matthew 7:13-23.
Jesus says to beware of false prophets in sheep’s clothing. This would mean their will be leaders will be teaching false traditions.

Then Jesus states many, not a few, will say to him on Judgement day, that they followed all his teachings as taught by their church, but He will cast them out, because the teachings they followed were not the one’s taught by Him, but they fell to the teachings of the false prophets.

So while I can understand why you might feel uncomfortable with that level of trust you can console yourself to the fact that within the span of 2000 years the Church and her traditions haven’t really let us down.

This leads to my question, I cannot seem to get answered. So I will ask you also. Jesus states to beware of false prophets. Paul writes to Test ourselves to see if we are in the faith (2 Cor 13:5). John warns to not believe every spirit, and test them (1 John 4:1). Revelations 2:2 offers kudos for the church of Ephesus for testing even those claiming to be apostles.

How do you follow these warnings and test the teachings you are receiving from your church leadership, whether it be Popes, Elders, or other leadership, if you do not test their teachings against Scripture?

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

This leads to my question, I cannot seem to get answered. So I will ask you also. Jesus states to beware of false prophets. Paul writes to Test ourselves to see if we are in the faith (2 Cor 13:5). John warns to not believe every spirit, and test them (1 John 4:1). Revelations 2:2 offers kudos for the church of Ephesus for testing even those claiming to be apostles.

How do you follow these warnings and test the teachings you are receiving from your church leadership, whether it be Popes, Elders, or other leadership, if you do not test their teachings against Scripture?

Scripture provides some sort of restraint against false teachings, but it is a poor one. For instance the Watchtower society, aka Jehovah’s Witnesses, is a biblically-based movement. So are the Southern Baptists. So are Presbyterians, now United Reform.
These groups don’t have much in common with each other, though they all approximate to some extent to the teachings of Jesus.

Old books are hard to read. Unless you are extremely well-educated, you cannot be a comptent Biblical critic, and you can’t enter into controversies about the meaning of texts. That is not to say that you cannot read the Bible in translation and get a very good idea of what it says.

For instance, the Catholic church says that when Jesus banned divorce, “except for fornication” He meant “casual relationships are not binding”. Otherwise the system would be an open invitation to every prostitute to get a man drunk and hook a rich husband. However that doesn’t follow obviously from most English translations.

So do you know the Greek? Do you know the Greek well enough to pick up these nuances? If not, what use is possession of the Bible to you in resolving this issue?