Question on Bible Alone

[JonNC]

How about someone who disagrees with your conclusion?

Is he going to be correct too?

Should be, because the poster is correct.

 

[po18guy]

“You will know them by their fruits.”

Does bible alone produce unity or division?

 

[spina1953]

How was it for all those centuries when most people could not read nor write nor could even afford to own a Bible how did that work for them? Guess you have to reply on someone who could read and hope that what they were saying was correct as those who could neither read nor write not know the difference. So Bible alone does not really work for those who could not read or write…

The Apostles did not have a Bible, they did have the OT but those were written on scrolls and i doubt the Apostles were carrying around 40 or 50 scrolls when they were preaching and teaching. besides, Under Jewish law no one would have owned any of the OT scrolls since they would be be either in the temple or Synagogues. The NT was not written at that time of the Apostles and while a few did write most of the Apostles did not write anything and what did become the Bible was only after the catholic Church decided under the guidance of the Holy Spirit what was inspired Scripture and what was not.

 

[JonNC]

“You will know them by their fruits.”

Does bible alone produce unity or division?

What produces division is human sin. There was division in the at Chalcedon, in 1054, all through history, whether or not “bible alone” was involved.

 

[Della]

I think Bible must come first but that would not be enough. Worships just like sacraments should be learnt from holy tradition.

Is that not wrong to establish faith(doctrines of Church) just on tradition which were not described in scripture? On the other hand faith and main and ultimate issues were declared very clearly in scripture!

The Catholic Church does not set aside the Bible for tradition, so no worries there.

Rather, the Bible is one part of Sacred Tradition that began with Adam and has not yet ended, for the Magisterium of the Church is one part of ST, along with the Bible and the oral teachings of the Apostles.

 

[Duane1966]

There is in principle, no difference between sola scriptura, and solo scriptura. Some of our Protestant brothers and sisters on these forums have proven this by their actions. The following is an excerpt from this article, I apologize for the length., pay special attention where the great Reformer Turretin, admits that solo, must trump sola: calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/

But sola scriptura does not mean only that Scripture must be interpreted in and by the Church. According to Mathison sola scriptura also means that Scripture is the final authoritative standard. He writes:

Scripture alone, therefore, can function as the “canon,” the rule, the final authoritative standard of truth against which all else is measured. Yes, it is the Church which does the measuring, and yes the rule of faith provides the basic parameters of measurement, but it is the Scripture and Scripture alone that is the standard norm.

An essential aspect of sola scriptura is that it affirms the infallibility of Scripture, and denies the infallibility of the Church. For this reason, according to Mathison, the Church, being fallible, is corrected by Scripture and subordinate to Scripture. He writes:

• Because of the Church’s propensity to wander from the true path, she needs a standard of truth that remains constant and sure, and that standard cannot be herself. It can only be the inspired and infallible Scripture.*

For Mathison, then, sola scriptura ascribes the highest ecclesial authority to Scripture, and ascribes subordinate ecclesial authority to the Church and the creeds. The individual believer is to be subject both to the primary authority of Scripture and to the secondary authority of the Church and creeds. The primacy of the Scripture’s authority, according to Mathison, does not nullify the genuine secondary authority of the Church.42

But this does raise a difficult question. If the Church has higher interpretive authority than does the individual, what is the individual to do when he or she disagrees with the Church’s decision regarding what Scripture teaches? In other words, what is the relationship between private judgment and the Church’s interpretive authority? Mathison answers this question by appealing to Francis Turretin.

• As Turretin explains, although the corporate doctrinal judgment of the Church is not infallible and does not have an authority equal to that of Scripture, it does have true authority over those who are members of the visible communion of the Church. What then is the relationship between private judgment and this corporate judgment? What is an individual Christian to do if he believes the corporate judgment found in the creeds and confessions to be in error? Turretin explains,*

“Hence if they think they observe anything in them worthy of correction, they ought to undertake nothing rashly or disorderly and unseasonably, so as to violently rend the body of their mother (which schismatics do), but to refer the difficulties they feel to their church and either to prefer her public opinion to their own private judgment or to secede from her communion, if the conscience cannot acquiesce in her judgment.** Thus they cannot bind in the inner court of conscience, except inasmuch as they are found to agree with the word of God (which alone has the power to bind the conscience)**.”

According to Turretin, the individual Christian should submit to the Church’s teaching and interpretation, except when his conscience, ultimately informed by his own interpretation of Scripture, cannot accept what the Church says. Mathison adds,

There is a difference then between the external ecclesiastical court and the internal court of conscience. The inward court of the individual conscience cannot be bound by anything other than the Word of God, but the Church does have doctrinal authority in the external ecclesiastical court. This authority is given to preserve unity in the Church’s faith and to reject the errors of heretics.44

Mathison maintains that the only authority that can bind the conscience is the Word of God. So when the Church teaches something that is incompatible with one’s conscience, as informed by one’s own interpretation of Scripture, one should reject the Church’s teaching and follow one’s own conscience. We can summarize Mathison’s explanation of the distinction between solo scriptura and sola scriptura as follows. Whereas solo scriptura rejects the interpretive authority of the Church and the derivative authority of the creeds, sola scriptura affirms the interpretive authority of the Church and the derivative authority of the creeds, except when they teach something contrary to one’s conscience, as informed by one’s own interpretation of Scripture.

…

 

[Duane1966]

IV. Why There Is No Principled Difference Between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura

A. Direct and Indirect Ultimate Interpretive Authority

What makes the solo scriptura position problematic, according to Mathison, is not its high view of Scripture, but its presumption that the individual has higher interpretive authority than does the Church. *Solo scriptura *treats the individual as having the ultimate or final interpretive authority regarding whatever matters he or she considers to be theologically essential or important. That is precisely why solo scriptura leads to the situations Mathison describes in his book. Robert Reymond can reject one line of the Creed because he sees himself as having at least equal interpretive and magisterial (i.e. teaching) authority to the bishops who gathered at Nicea in AD 325 to formulate the Creed. If Reymond believed that those bishops had greater interpretive and magisterial authority than himself, he would treat the Creed as a corrective to his own interpretation and position, in whatever areas his interpretation and position were at odds with that of the Creed.

But there are two ways to make oneself one’s own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority. One is a direct way and the other is an indirect way. The direct way is to subject all theological questions directly to the final verdict of one’s own interpretation of Scripture. That is the solo scriptura position. Because it is direct, the nature of the position is quite transparent; we can see clearly in such a case that the individual is acting as his own ultimate interpretive authority.

The indirect way of making oneself one’s own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority is more complicated and subtle. In this case the individual, based upon his own interpretation of Scripture, either establishes or chooses an ecclesial community that conforms to his own interpretation in matters he considers to be essential or important. Then, he ‘submits’ to this institution so long as it continues to speak and act in accordance with his own interpretation of Scripture. If it deviates from his own interpretation of Scripture in matters he deems important, he repeats the process of either establishing or choosing an institution or congregation that conforms to his own interpretation in matters he considers to be essential or important.

In both the direct and indirect ways, the individual is acting as his own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority. But his doing so is more difficult to see in the indirect case because he appears to be submitting to the interpretive authority of a body of persons other than himself. **Yet, because he has established or selected this body of persons on the basis of their conformity to his own interpretation of Scripture, and because he ‘submits’ to them only so long as they agree with his interpretation on matters he considers to be essential or important, therefore in actuality his ‘submission’ to this body is in fact ‘submission’ to himself. **To submit to others only when one agrees with them, is to submit to oneself. But submission to oneself is an oxymoron, because it is indistinguishable from not submitting at all, from doing whatever one wants. Yet because this indirect way of being one’s own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority maintains the appearance of being in submission to another body of persons, it allows those who practice it to believe falsely that they are genuinely submitting to another body of persons, and not acting as their own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority. Accumulating for themselves this body of persons to whom they ‘submit’ allows them to remain under a delusion that they are submitting to the Church.45

Solo scriptura is the direct way of acting as one’s own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority. But as we show below, the indirect way of acting as one’s own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority is precisely the methodology entailed by sola scriptura. Here’s why. In Mathison’s account of sola scriptura, Scripture must be interpreted “in and by the church.” He even says that we must turn to the Church for the true interpretation of Scripture, “for it is in the Church that the gospel is found.”46 Notice that Mathison claims that it is in the Church that the gospel is found.

But how does he determine what is the Church? Being Reformed, he defines ‘Church’ as wherever the gospel is found, because the early Protestants defined the marks of the Church as including “the gospel,” where the gospel was determined by their own private interpretation of Scripture. So he claims that it is in the Church that the gospel is found, but he defines the Church in terms of the gospel. This is what we call a tautology. It is a form of circular reasoning that allows anyone to claim to be the Church and have the gospel. One can read the Bible and formulate one’s own understanding of the gospel, then make this “gospel” a necessary mark of the Church, and then say that it is in the Church that the gospel is found. Because one has defined the Ch in terms of the gospel [as arrived at by one’s own interpretation of Scripture], telling us that the gospel is found “in the Church” tells us nothing other than “people who share my own interpretation of Scripture about what is the gospel are referred to by me as ‘the Church.’” This kind of circular reasoning allows falsehood to remain hidden.

…

 

[Duane1966]

The Catholic position does not suffer from this circularity, because ‘Church’ is not defined in terms of “gospel,” but in terms of apostolic succession, involving an unbroken line of authorizations extending down from the Apostles. Just as Christ authorized and sent the Apostles to preach and teach in His Name, and govern His Church, so the Apostles, by the laying on of their hands, appointed bishops as their successors, and by this mystery handed on to them the divine authority to preach and teach and govern the Church. And these men also, in the same way authorized other men to succeed them to preach and teach the gospel and govern Christ’s Church. Only those having the succession from the Apostles are divinely authorized to preach and teach and govern Christ’s Church. *For that reason, the Church is defined not by the gospel (as determined by one’s own interpretation of Scripture). Rather, the content of the gospel is specified by the Church, and the Church is located by the succession from the Apostles. This is why apostolicity is one of the four marks of the Church taught in the Creed: “we believe one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.” But given Mathison’s account, what counts as ‘church’ is always and ultimately up to each individual to decide on the basis of his or her own determination of the gospel, on the basis of his or her own interpretation of Scripture. So on Mathison’s account, no one has any more authority than anyone else to say definitively what is the Church and where is the Church, and what is her doctrine and what is not her doctrine.
**
That can be seen in the very events of the Protestant Reformation. The first Protestants did not submit their interpretations of Scripture to the judgment of the Catholic Church in which they had each been baptized and raised. Rather, the first Protestants appealed to their own interpretation of Scripture to judge the Church to be apostate, and thus justify separating from her. They did this by redefining the marks of the Church. The first generation of Protestants, without any authorization from their bishops, appealed to their own interpretation of Scripture to determine three (or two) new “marks of the Church,” beyond the four marks given twelve hundred years earlier in the Nicene Creed. These new marks consisted of: (1) the preaching of the gospel (or ‘sound doctrine’), where what counts as ‘gospel’ and ‘sound doctrine’ was determined according to their own interpretation of Scripture, (2) the proper administration of the sacraments, where what counts as a sacrament and what is its proper administration were determined again by their own interpretation of Scripture, and (3) the right exercise of church discipline, again, as determined by their own interpretation of Scripture.47 By these new marks derived from their own interpretation of Scripture, they determined that the Catholic Church governed by the successor of the Apostle Peter had become apostate, and thus that the Catholic bishops under whose authority they lived, had no ecclesial authority, and that they themselves * were the continuation of the Church.

Believe it or not, this was only a short excerpt. I highly recommend the whole article.

 

[Reuben_J]

I think Bible must come first but that would not be enough. Worships just like sacraments should be learnt from holy tradition.

Is that not wrong to establish faith(doctrines of Church) just on tradition which were not described in scripture? On the other hand faith and main and ultimate issues were declared very clearly in scripture!

That’s the problem. In Christianity, faith and doctrines are not declared very clearly in the scripture. Thus the Church has to spell out doctrines. So the Scripture (Bible) has to be understood together with Tradition and the Church’s teaching defines it (Magisterium).

 

[spina1953]

When the Protestant Reformation began, those who rejected the authority of the Catholic Church needed to have a new authority so to speak. The Bible became that authority that is the highest authority. What is missing is that St. John in his Gospel said that Jesus did and said many things that were not written down. That being the case and if we believe that Gospels as true Word of God then we must also believe that the Bible is not the highest or final authority Since if we are to believe what St. John said in his Gospel that not everything Jesus said and did was written down that there must have teachings passed to the Apostles not written in the Bible thereby in effect Bible alone does not work.

Luther is to have said any 9 year old could read Scripture and understand all that was written in it. Yet in truth this is no where true since so many who read Scripture have their own interpretation of what they believe it says and means claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit and each who has a different understanding each claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit. So how is one to know who is correct? This is why the Catholic Church is the real authority to say what it means and says, otherwise all we get is thousands and thousands of different interpretations each being claimed as true.

There is nothing wrong in reading Scripture and it is good for one to do and also derive solace and comfort as well as some understanding, but without the Catholic Church to tell us how to understand what Scripture is telling us we are just left to our own devices and notions of what we might think it means and says never knowing with any certainty of what we think it says is correct.

The Bible does not say all one needs is the Bible or Bible alone Bible alone is only a man made belief which leads to misunderstandings and distortions. Not one of us can say we understand everything that has been written down in Scripture, which is why we need an authority to teach us what we need to know concerning what to believe,that is the Catholic Church.

 

[hasantas]

That’s the problem. In Christianity, faith and doctrines are not declared very clearly in the scripture. Thus the Church has to spell out doctrines. So the Scripture (Bible) has to be understood together with Tradition and the Church’s teaching defines it (Magisterium).

But doctrines conflict with OT(and also with NT)? That suggest that doctrines are merely make of human. Holy Spirit would not teach some things which disaccord with revelation!

 

[MichaelP3]

But doctrines conflict with OT(and also with NT)? That suggest that doctrines are merely make of human. Holy Spirit would not teach some things which disaccord with revelation!

Hi hasantas

I suspect we would still disagree on some matters but I would like to point out not all Christians (The poster should have clarified that in Catholicism, although also Christian) subscribe to the post you responded to. Many of us actually do believe all that is worthy of belief (lets call them doctrines although this word is used interchangeably at times) is in scripture.

Regards

 

[Della]

But doctrines conflict with OT(and also with NT)? That suggest that doctrines are merely make of human. Holy Spirit would not teach some things which disaccord with revelation!

There are no NT doctrines that conflict with the OT. The Incarnation of Christ was the fulfillment of the OT law and prescriptions. Jesus said that he didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. As the Messiah, he ushered in the law of love and empowers all who are baptized in his grace to keep his law. St. Paul goes into all this quite extensively, but then it helps to not only know the kind so law he was writing about, but what it meant to the Jewish people, and what we are still supposed to keep, such as the Ten Commandments, or as it is often called, the natural law which God put into the hearts of all men.

 

[hasantas]

There are no NT doctrines that conflict with the OT. The Incarnation of Christ was the fulfillment of the OT law and prescriptions. Jesus said that he didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. As the Messiah, he ushered in the law of love and empowers all who are baptized in his grace to keep his law. St. Paul goes into all this quite extensively, but then it helps to not only know the kind so law he was writing about, but what it meant to the Jewish people, and what we are still supposed to keep, such as the Ten Commandments, or as it is often called, the natural law which God put into the hearts of all men.

Yeah… OT does not conflict NT and Jesus fulfilled OT law and also changed or added a bit. That is not matter. The problem is that there is no any relation between doctrines and scripture.

 

[spina1953]

The NT fulfills the OT. Pure and simple. Testament is an old English word meaning Covenant so one part of the Bible is really the old Covenant which has been fulfilled by the new and ever lasting Covenant which Christ fulfilled. Christ sa he said did not do away with the old Covenant but gave us a new Covenant in which explains and gives a better meaning of God’s Word by which God wants us to live by.

 

[spina1953]

Yeah… OT does not conflict NT and Jesus fulfilled OT law and also changed or added a bit. That is not matter. The problem is that there is no any relation between doctrines and scripture.

Actually Christ did not change anything in the OT nor did Christ add anything to the NT. What Christ did was explain how one lives with each other that is walk with man and walk with God doing what God wills for us. Christ teachings are doctrines in which all should live by.

 

[Reuben_J]

But doctrines conflict with OT(and also with NT)? That suggest that doctrines are merely make of human. Holy Spirit would not teach some things which disaccord with revelation!

Good question. If doctrines conflict with the Scripture, it also suggestive of wrong understanding of the Scripture, which need to be understood correctly.

How? You have to have a user manual to guide you. Otherwise Scripture can be interpreted in thousand and one ways, depending on the inclination of the interpreters concerned.

Thus, Bible cannot stand alone.

Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magisterium (Teaching Office) come from the same Spirit. The fullness of truth therefore must not neglect any one of these, otherwise it will be like a three legged stool with a leg or two that are broken. It cannot stand.

Christianity is an apostolic religion that relies on the teaching of the apostles from the revelation of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church stood from day one without interruption until the present moment.

Its Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium are still intact but it is not so with new Christian denominations which had broken off from the mother Church. So it is understandable for them that they could not rely on Tradition because they had started their own tradition which do not trace its source to the apostles.

 

[hasantas]

Good question. If doctrines conflict with the Scripture, it also suggestive of wrong understanding of the Scripture, which need to be understood correctly.

How? You have to have a user manual to guide you. Otherwise Scripture can be interpreted in thousand and one ways, depending on the inclination of the interpreters concerned.

Thus, Bible cannot stand alone.

Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magisterium (Teaching Office) come from the same Spirit. The fullness of truth therefore must not neglect any one of these, otherwise it will be like a three legged stool with a leg or two that are broken. It cannot stand.

Christianity is an apostolic religion that relies on the teaching of the apostles from the revelation of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church stood from day one without interruption until the present moment.

Its Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium are still intact but it is not so with new Christian denominations which had broken off from the mother Church. So it is understandable for them that they could not rely on Tradition because they had started their own tradition which do not trace its source to the apostles.

The strained interpretations to prove doctrines could be such wrong interpretations, sure?

St. Paul was not apostle of Jesus. But he established a new faith in religion! And Paul was enemy for Jesus’s followers.

Apostle could convey disciplines of Jesus but they should not found new prancipals which made religion different from original. Indeed non of Apostles did but someone who is assumed to be apostle did.

 

[hasantas]

Actually Christ did not change anything in the OT nor did Christ add anything to the NT. What Christ did was explain how one lives with each other that is walk with man and walk with God doing what God wills for us. Christ teachings are doctrines in which all should live by.

Jesus allowed wine and said new things about sabbath.

22 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.

23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.

24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?

25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. Mark 2

And Jesus did not stone woman to death. etc.

And that is true that Jesus applied law of OT because Jews were not eager to obey laws and they made many troubles. But Jesus were given a great authority to make people more moral.

The problem is that doctrines are not in disciplines of Jesus.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Yeah… OT does not conflict NT and Jesus fulfilled OT law and also changed or added a bit. That is not matter. The problem is that there is no any relation between doctrines and scripture.

Hi hasantas.

This is the same issue we have talking with those non Catholics who practice sola scriptura.

“No relation between doctrine and scripture” …according to your private interpretation of it.

And your interpretation, just like mine, is fallible and you, just like me, weren’t given keys and a promise(Matt 16) And ability to loose and bind. But of course the Church was.