N
Nick_Jones
Guest
What is wrong with scripture alone as my rule of faith? If sola scriptura is not adequate as a rule of faith, what should I replace it with?
Thanks,
Nick
Thanks,
Nick
- Status
M
mercygate
Guest
Scripture fully embedded in the Church which produced it.
D
Della
Guest
You don’t need to replace Scripture but only understand what it is, what it isn’t, and what place it has in the history of Christianity.
I highly recommend for your research: Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church written by a man who was brought up Church of Scotland and became a Catholic priest. It’s unbiased (he has no agenda except to give his readers the true history of the Bible), easy to read, and quite informative.
B
BlestOne
Guest
When you depend on the Bible alone for your faith, you are not experiencing the fullness of the faith. In the Bible it directs you to hold fast to the scripture oral and written. Why is it that there are even people who believe in Sola Scriptura? You lose so much of the meaning behind the words if you just read the Bible and not understand the history or the reference from other sources. Here are a few examples of how tradition enhances our faith or the expression of:
Why is the Catholic mass set up the way it is? Because we know from writings as far back as 67 ad how the mass was conducted by the apostles, that’s why. It is not outlined in the Bible how a worship service is to be conducted, so the next best thing is the historical writings of the times.
When you read in the Bible about the keys of the kingdom… what do you think is the role of the keeper of the keys? If you don’t understand that this historical and Biblical tradition is that the keeper of the keys has total authority of the Master in his absence. Infact… The keeper is the highest authority on earth as the Master is in heaven. According to tradition, the keeper is also responsible for his sucessor in the absence of the Master. The master is Jesus and the keeper is Peter in the Bible…and has a documented history of sucessors since the days Peter walked the earth. Until the second coming there has to be a keeper as the Master commanded. Therefore, not submitting to the keeper is just as bad as not submitting to the Master…a definite no-no!
When the first Christians went out and preached the Good News of Jesus Christ after Pentecost, this was an oral tradition proclaimed orally. Some of it got recorded in the Bible (e.g., in Acts 2) but most did not, and could not (see John 20:30, 21:25). It was primarily this oral Christian tradition which turned the world upside down, not the text of the New Testament (many if not most people couldn’t read then anyway). Accordingly, when the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” occur in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the written word of the Bible, as Protestants casually assume. A perusal of the context in each case will make this abundantly clear.
Why is the Catholic mass set up the way it is? Because we know from writings as far back as 67 ad how the mass was conducted by the apostles, that’s why. It is not outlined in the Bible how a worship service is to be conducted, so the next best thing is the historical writings of the times.
When you read in the Bible about the keys of the kingdom… what do you think is the role of the keeper of the keys? If you don’t understand that this historical and Biblical tradition is that the keeper of the keys has total authority of the Master in his absence. Infact… The keeper is the highest authority on earth as the Master is in heaven. According to tradition, the keeper is also responsible for his sucessor in the absence of the Master. The master is Jesus and the keeper is Peter in the Bible…and has a documented history of sucessors since the days Peter walked the earth. Until the second coming there has to be a keeper as the Master commanded. Therefore, not submitting to the keeper is just as bad as not submitting to the Master…a definite no-no!
When the first Christians went out and preached the Good News of Jesus Christ after Pentecost, this was an oral tradition proclaimed orally. Some of it got recorded in the Bible (e.g., in Acts 2) but most did not, and could not (see John 20:30, 21:25). It was primarily this oral Christian tradition which turned the world upside down, not the text of the New Testament (many if not most people couldn’t read then anyway). Accordingly, when the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” occur in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the written word of the Bible, as Protestants casually assume. A perusal of the context in each case will make this abundantly clear.
J
JaneFrances
Guest
Hey Nick, Welcome to the forums. I hope you get some answers here.
I would first ask you to clarify your position on what “scripture alone” means. Believe it or not, there are wide variations on this seemingly straightforward topic.
Then, I would go on to say that on a very fundamental basis, no one can truly depend on “scripture alone” as a rule of faith. It always ends up being “scripture plus my pastor,” “scripture plus my interpretation of it,” “scripture plus my church’s creed,” “scripture plus the guy who wrote the footnotes to my bible.” You see where this is going. . .
Strictly speaking, there is absolutely nothing wrong with going to Holy Scripture for teaching, reproof, correction and training in holiness (and THAT’s Scriptural. . .
). You run into problems, however, when what you believe Scripture is saying is incorrect. St. Peter warns us of this (also in Scripture).
We must be ever careful to regard Sacred Scripture as God-breathed and inspired. However, we must also be very careful not to idolize it. Scripture is the written Word which comes from the same well of Divine revelation as Sacred Tradition (as seen in Scripture). It is the mandate of Christ’s Church to protect and preserve both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition so that we, the children of God, are well formed in our understanding of our Lord and our relationship with Him.
Our faith is in Him.
I would first ask you to clarify your position on what “scripture alone” means. Believe it or not, there are wide variations on this seemingly straightforward topic.
Then, I would go on to say that on a very fundamental basis, no one can truly depend on “scripture alone” as a rule of faith. It always ends up being “scripture plus my pastor,” “scripture plus my interpretation of it,” “scripture plus my church’s creed,” “scripture plus the guy who wrote the footnotes to my bible.” You see where this is going. . .
Strictly speaking, there is absolutely nothing wrong with going to Holy Scripture for teaching, reproof, correction and training in holiness (and THAT’s Scriptural. . .
). You run into problems, however, when what you believe Scripture is saying is incorrect. St. Peter warns us of this (also in Scripture).We must be ever careful to regard Sacred Scripture as God-breathed and inspired. However, we must also be very careful not to idolize it. Scripture is the written Word which comes from the same well of Divine revelation as Sacred Tradition (as seen in Scripture). It is the mandate of Christ’s Church to protect and preserve both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition so that we, the children of God, are well formed in our understanding of our Lord and our relationship with Him.
Our faith is in Him.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Aside from all the other reasons that persons may point out to you, what is wrong with Scripture alone as a rule of faith is because Scripture explicitly commands us to regard certain oral tradition as a rule of faith.
2 Timothy 3:12-17 reads: “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
Note the context for this section of Paul’s epistle (verse 12). He is writing to warn Timothy about those who will come to deceive followers of Christ. This context is vitally important, because it shows that the very reason Paul is writing the commands he is here is to provide his disciple Timothy, now a Church leader himself, with the antidote to deception and the key to maintaining true doctrine. By writing, “but as for you,” he contrasts Timothy with the deceived and the deceivers. ‘They will be deceived,’ he is saying, 'but you, Timothy, will do this.’ Paul then provides two antidotes to the deception.
The first point constitutes the Catholic understanding of Sacred Tradition. Paul instructs Timothy to remember what he learned and remember who (so he can be certain of its Divine origin) he learned it from. Those teachings from Paul (or the other apostles) would be, while teachings from other sources would not be. Catholic Sacred Tradition is understood in the same way. It is the teaching that was passed down from the apostles themselves. Even today Catholics can follow Paul’s instruction. Men such as Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch, and Irenaeus learned directly from Peter, Paul, and John, and they have left many writings behind. Even as Sacred Tradition is preserved today in the official teachings of the Church, it can be “remembered” who it came from by reading the works of these disciples of the apostles. From the first recorded use of the word ‘Catholic’ to describe the Church by Ignatius in 107 AD to Irenaues’ teachings on the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the second century to Clement’s exercise of his papal authority a mere 60 years after Christ, the Traditions of the Church are easy to find among the writings of these early leaders.
The second point Paul makes is to encourage Timothy to remember the Scriptures, which is not a matter that is disagreed upon at all. Paul, however, made it a point to tell Timothy to remember what he had learned and from who, and just as what the Scriptures teach today applied in Timothy’s day, so too does what they taught in his day apply today. This means that the command to remember what was learned and who it was learned from must be held by Christians today. Paul wrote a similar command to the Thessalonians, instructing them to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
Just as is the case with his instruction to Timothy, Paul’s command to the Thessalonians is also given as an antidote for deception (read the context from the beginning of the chapter through). The apostle is consistent in pairing his commendation to Scripture with a commendation to oral teachings, and is consistent in presenting them together as the means to avoid heresy. In fact, 2 Thessalonians was one of the earliest writings of Paul (likely the second), while 2 Timothy was his last, meaning that his command to follow Tradition remained consistent from the beginning of his ministry to the end. He sees the two as being somehow complimentary, in the same manner as the Catholic Church does. Paul was confident that the Traditions would be preserved accurately because he knew that the Holy Spirit would guard them. Earlier in the epistle to Timothy in which he commended him to Scripture and Tradition, Paul made it clear that the Holy Spirit would protect the handing on of oral teachings (2 Tim 1:12-14).
Most importantly, there is no command in Scripture to cease holding to these traditions and to rely entirely on Scripture. Therefore, to reject apostolic Tradition as binding on the believer is to disobey St. Paul’s (through the Holy Spirit) instructions.
2 Timothy 3:12-17 reads: “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
Note the context for this section of Paul’s epistle (verse 12). He is writing to warn Timothy about those who will come to deceive followers of Christ. This context is vitally important, because it shows that the very reason Paul is writing the commands he is here is to provide his disciple Timothy, now a Church leader himself, with the antidote to deception and the key to maintaining true doctrine. By writing, “but as for you,” he contrasts Timothy with the deceived and the deceivers. ‘They will be deceived,’ he is saying, 'but you, Timothy, will do this.’ Paul then provides two antidotes to the deception.
- Continue in what you have learned and believed and know who you have learned it from (14)
- Remember your familiarity with the Scriptures (15)
The first point constitutes the Catholic understanding of Sacred Tradition. Paul instructs Timothy to remember what he learned and remember who (so he can be certain of its Divine origin) he learned it from. Those teachings from Paul (or the other apostles) would be, while teachings from other sources would not be. Catholic Sacred Tradition is understood in the same way. It is the teaching that was passed down from the apostles themselves. Even today Catholics can follow Paul’s instruction. Men such as Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch, and Irenaeus learned directly from Peter, Paul, and John, and they have left many writings behind. Even as Sacred Tradition is preserved today in the official teachings of the Church, it can be “remembered” who it came from by reading the works of these disciples of the apostles. From the first recorded use of the word ‘Catholic’ to describe the Church by Ignatius in 107 AD to Irenaues’ teachings on the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the second century to Clement’s exercise of his papal authority a mere 60 years after Christ, the Traditions of the Church are easy to find among the writings of these early leaders.
The second point Paul makes is to encourage Timothy to remember the Scriptures, which is not a matter that is disagreed upon at all. Paul, however, made it a point to tell Timothy to remember what he had learned and from who, and just as what the Scriptures teach today applied in Timothy’s day, so too does what they taught in his day apply today. This means that the command to remember what was learned and who it was learned from must be held by Christians today. Paul wrote a similar command to the Thessalonians, instructing them to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
Just as is the case with his instruction to Timothy, Paul’s command to the Thessalonians is also given as an antidote for deception (read the context from the beginning of the chapter through). The apostle is consistent in pairing his commendation to Scripture with a commendation to oral teachings, and is consistent in presenting them together as the means to avoid heresy. In fact, 2 Thessalonians was one of the earliest writings of Paul (likely the second), while 2 Timothy was his last, meaning that his command to follow Tradition remained consistent from the beginning of his ministry to the end. He sees the two as being somehow complimentary, in the same manner as the Catholic Church does. Paul was confident that the Traditions would be preserved accurately because he knew that the Holy Spirit would guard them. Earlier in the epistle to Timothy in which he commended him to Scripture and Tradition, Paul made it clear that the Holy Spirit would protect the handing on of oral teachings (2 Tim 1:12-14).
Most importantly, there is no command in Scripture to cease holding to these traditions and to rely entirely on Scripture. Therefore, to reject apostolic Tradition as binding on the believer is to disobey St. Paul’s (through the Holy Spirit) instructions.
L
Liberian
Guest
Nick,
Hello and welcome to the Catholic Answers Forums. I hope you have a blessed and uplifting time here.
The problem with having “scripture alone” as your rule of faith is that unless somebody interprets it for you, you do not know what the Scripture actually says. Scripture is written in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek, and it is a rare person who is fluent in all three languages plus his own. On top of that, the original Hebrew had no vowels and the original Greek had no gaps between the words, so even the exact words themselves are a matter of tradition.
So for the regular person, “scripture alone” turns into “scripture filtered through the tradition of what the original words are, filtered further through the translation into a language that I can understand, and filtered even more through the interpretations that I have heard and agree with.” It really doesn’t work.
I would suggest to you that you replace “scripture alone” with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The teachings of the Catholic Church are all in accordance with Scripture, when properly interpreted (so all your time spent in Bible study is not wasted), and has the incomparable advantage that if you don’t understand something the Church can clarify it for you. The Bible can’t do that.
Hello and welcome to the Catholic Answers Forums. I hope you have a blessed and uplifting time here.
The problem with having “scripture alone” as your rule of faith is that unless somebody interprets it for you, you do not know what the Scripture actually says. Scripture is written in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek, and it is a rare person who is fluent in all three languages plus his own. On top of that, the original Hebrew had no vowels and the original Greek had no gaps between the words, so even the exact words themselves are a matter of tradition.
So for the regular person, “scripture alone” turns into “scripture filtered through the tradition of what the original words are, filtered further through the translation into a language that I can understand, and filtered even more through the interpretations that I have heard and agree with.” It really doesn’t work.
I would suggest to you that you replace “scripture alone” with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The teachings of the Catholic Church are all in accordance with Scripture, when properly interpreted (so all your time spent in Bible study is not wasted), and has the incomparable advantage that if you don’t understand something the Church can clarify it for you. The Bible can’t do that.
- Liberian
K
kleary
Guest
Scripture Alone as “The sole rule of faith” means that you believe everything God has revealed to man in regards to the Christian Faith is contained in scripture alone.
This is proven false by simply opeing up your Bible to page #1 where it lists the books of the Old and New Testaments.
The list of books is indeed a truth revealed by God, yet that truth is NOT SCRIPTURE. So since this “sola scriptura” doctrine is proven false by the existance of Divine Revelation OUTSIDE OF SCRIPTURE why on earth would you rely on it? Especially since Christianity has always held that there are two sources of Divine Revelation, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as taught in Scripture and confirmed by Tradition?
Ken
N
Nick_Jones
Guest
Then who should I seek for the correct interpretation of the bible? You would probably say I should trust the CC, but why?
It seems that you might have skipped an important step here. How can I know that The CC is the one that teaches in accordance with Scripture (when properly interpreted) if I’m not really capable of knowing exactly what the scriptures say?
N
Nick_Jones
Guest
I haven’t said that I believe sola scriptura means that I believe everything God has revealed to man in regards to the Christian Faith is contained in scripture alone. To me SS is a recognition of the sufficiency of scripture, and thus I’m not bound by teachings that are not taught in the bible.
I realize that the table of contents (list of the books) isn’t scripture, but I don’t see why that proves “sola scriptura” as a doctrine, false.
N
Nick_Jones
Guest
I know that I’m only human, and that I could be wrong in my interpretation of several parts of the bible. But if I am, at best, a fallible interpreter of the bible, then I’m also fallible when it comes to knowing which church I should trust to correctly interpret the bible. Is there a solution?Strictly speaking, there is absolutely nothing wrong with going to Holy Scripture for teaching, reproof, correction and training in holiness (and THAT’s Scriptural. . .
D
dal11
Guest
You should trust the Catholic Chuch because God did. The Catholic Chuch is the one God trusted to give us the bible in the first place.
M
mercygate
Guest
As a convert, who got to the Catholic Church the hard way, I would suggest that you look at John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine – that is, if you have a taste for clear, unimpassioned, logical, nineteenth century prose. It is outstanding though it requires a sophisticated reader.
The short answer is that the Catholic Church traces her authority to Christ himself, as evidenced in Scripture. All Christians recognize that the truth of the Resurrection, and that Jesus was the Son of God was witnessed to in an undeniable way by the martyrs of the Early Church. In Scripture Jesus promised to “build my church,” and in that first 100 years of Christianity the building was laid on the bones of the martyrs, who freely chose horrible deaths, lifelong deprivation, persecution and exile rather than deny what they knew to be true: Jesus was God and the Son of God.
What does that have to do with the Catholic Church?
Looking back in history, we can trace the Catholic Church today back through the ages, historically, to those early martyrs. The evidence of this historical continuity survives in the writings of the Early Church Fathers – one of whom, Ignatius of Antioch, first called the Church “catholic” (meaning universal) in 107 A.D. Ignatius was a direct disciple of St. John the Evangelist. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, also characterized the Roman Church as holding “the presidency of love” in the universal Church.
Another Early Father, Irenaeus of Lyon, around 185 A.D. noted – as if it were common knowledge – that all the churches must agree with the Church of Rome in matters of doctrine because she had never fallen into any kind of error. (Irenaeus, a bishop in Gaul, is tipping his mitre to Rome.)
Tracing the historiy and development of doctrine along with the plain physical history of the Church, we know that the Catholic Church today IS that same Church seeded by the blood of the martyrs. Since Jesus was God, and the Son of God, we can trust him to do what he said he would do: build his Church. Not “churches.” Not “our” church. Certainly not a plethora of denominations: His one, holy catholic and apostolic Church.
Just as Christ had a physical body when he walked as a man among us on earth, so has his Church an identifiable physical body on earth today. Of course, the Church comprises more than what I sometimes call “the corporation.” It includes the Church in heaven and even, to some extent, separated brethren not in communion with Rome who call upon the Name of Jesus.
So the Catholic case is three-fold: Scripture, the early history of the Church that testifies to the credibility of the Resurrection, and the ongoing witness of Tradition. Taken together, the only possible conclusion is that the Catholic Church is the focal point of Christian witness in the world.
Once you recognize that the Incarnation demands corporal identity and corporal communion among Christian brethren: once you recognize that the historical claims of the Catholic Church are undeniable, then you are left with only one choice: to be in union with Him in His Church.
J
JaneFrances
Guest
Hey Nick. Good questions. . .you’re thinkin’.
First, I would ask you again to clarify your understanding of “scripture alone” as it would be difficult to answer some of your questions accurately without a proper understanding of your position.
That said. . .rest assured, you need not be infallible to know Truth. An analogy may help here. I love to watch the Olympics. I find myself enthralled by the skill and precision of the gymnasts. If I even tried to do any of that, I’d fall flat on my face–I guess you’d say I’m “fall-ible.” Even though I haven’t the foggiest how to do even a fraction of what they are doing, I’ve watched it long enough to know when the athletes made a mistake or hit the mark. This can be likened to how we KNOW when a church is right.
Sometimes it takes years if study, toil, and prayer. Sometimes the Holy Spirit works a little faster, but there comes a time when, by grace, our eyes are opened and we just KNOW. Not because it makes sense to us or it fits into our idea of what church looks like, but because it’s so revolutionary and its so different from “me” that it MUST be Him.
I love the story of the man who approaches Jesus to cure him of his blindness. Jesus takes some spit and slaps it on his eyes. The guy looks around. . .he can see now, but he says people are looking like trees. Then, he goes back to Jesus a second time. This time, our Lord heals him completely. The man sees perfectly. Now did Jesus fudge the first time? What’s the point of the guy having to come to Jesus time after time before he could see?
I think that guy is us. We have to keep going back to Him. Not that he can’t give it all to us in one spit slap, but that he wants us to keep coming to Him. It is only through our cooperation with His grace that we will recieve. We have to keep knocking.
Maybe that’s where you are, too? Maybe that’s why you’re here?
Do you know much about the early church, Nick? Have your read what the guys wrote who lived 30 years after Christ thought about Baptism, Eucharist, Confession, Church, God, etc? They didn’t have “the Bible” to read for themselves. They couldn’t just pick up their RSV and say “Come Holy Spirit” and have their eyes opend. There was another way. . .What was it? It was the Church.
But, what Church, you ask?
Read 'em. . .find out! Keep knocking! The spit’s slinging!
L
Liberian
Guest
Nick,
You are absolutely right, as a Catholic I will say that you should trust the Catholic Church. My reason is that it is descended directly from the Apostles, and Jesus promised to the Apostles (and only to the Apostles–the other disciples were not in the room at the time) that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth (see John 16:13). All Protestant churches have a discontinuity in their history, where they broke off from the Catholic Church.
Well, I guess you are in the position of Othello regarding Desdemona. If you have faith, everything holds together in a self-consistent whole leading to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is to be trusted, but if you do not have faith, then many things will point to a conclusion that you need to look elsewhere.
Practically speaking, there is a good bit of agreement over the rough outlines of what the Scriptures actually say. My point in talking about the addition of the vowels and blank spaces, the translators, and the interpreters was to show that “Scripture alone” is simply not possible for most of us.
- Liberian
N
Nick_Jones
Guest
How did you determine that, “The Catholic Chuch is the one God trusted to give us the bible in the first place.”?
N
Nick_Jones
Guest
How can we know that this is true?
I think that the name, “Protestant” is what’s new. The name “Lutheran” is new… but, conceptually speaking, this doesn’t necessarily mean that whatever Protestants generally believe concerning the gospel must be new.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Well, Nick, what other church WAS there in 390 A.D. when the written Bible was codified? The Orthodox and Catholics did not split until 1054 A.D.; the Protestant reformation did not occur until the early 16th century A.D.
So for some 650 years, you had just one catholic, Catholic, universal church which had the very same Bible (although a few denominations since the 1500s have removed a few books) that we have today.
So obviously the people in the Catholic Church (the only church) who worked under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and came up with the Bible were the ones God trusted.
Whether you believe that somehow, somewhere things ‘went wrong’ (as many Protestants believe), you cannot change the historical fact that the people who were given the inspiration to codify the Bible, and who carried forth and taught from that Bible, in total unity for the next 650 years, and then as part of a group of ‘two’ Sister Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) since 1054, and then as the Church from which all Protestant denominations have splintered from either primarily or secondarily since the 1500s–those people were “the Catholic Church.”
So for some 650 years, you had just one catholic, Catholic, universal church which had the very same Bible (although a few denominations since the 1500s have removed a few books) that we have today.
So obviously the people in the Catholic Church (the only church) who worked under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and came up with the Bible were the ones God trusted.
Whether you believe that somehow, somewhere things ‘went wrong’ (as many Protestants believe), you cannot change the historical fact that the people who were given the inspiration to codify the Bible, and who carried forth and taught from that Bible, in total unity for the next 650 years, and then as part of a group of ‘two’ Sister Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) since 1054, and then as the Church from which all Protestant denominations have splintered from either primarily or secondarily since the 1500s–those people were “the Catholic Church.”
N
Nick_Jones
Guest
As my authority on teaching, I hold to the scriptures alone. I must accept the authority of the written word since it was given to the church for a purpose by God. This doesn’t mean that I have infallible understanding of the bible and thus have no need of preachers who will attempt to shed more light on the teachings of the bible. I do need to be taught by those who are more knowledgable. But in the end I must realize that if my pastor teaches something that is blatently contrary to what is taught in the bible, I have to believe what God’s word teaches.
M
mark_a
Guest
Scripture alone is not "a"n unsolvable problem, but interpretation is “the” variable.
- Status