Question to Protestants regarding the Bible

[teak421]

teak421;5728406:

For purposes of doctrine, yes I do. And why do I? Because, as I said before, I do not trust highly centralised organisations, which seem to be able to pull new doctrines out of the hat, and that without any reference to the Bible.

You believe in something, in this case, Sola Scriptura. Its unwise to agree with something because you believe the alternative is horrible. So, again… Is there any Scripture that directly states that ONLY the Bible in its current form contains EVERYTHING about the Christian faith.

Take care.

• Michael

 

[Jason_1977]

I just converted this past Easter! cool huh!

• Michael

sweet. I know more in a year & a half than I ever did 30 years with the church of England. The sad thing was I was able to take communion with the Episcopal church and everything. I understood (then) what it symbolized, but to me it was just another part of the service. My dad & I (He’s formerly of the RCC, he crossed the tracks, lol) used to say we got jipped when we didnt get too much of a sip of the wine, there was practically no reverence for it, I’m ashamed to say. The service was a time for goofing off & making fun of the tone deaf in the choir. I am very ashamed to say that, but it’s true. I never really took any of it seriously nor did I have a sense of reverence. I was an altar boy & everything. I was too young then I guess or not curious enough to gain an understanding or whatever, but now at the age of 32 I’m a bit more mature than I was, my father has encouraged me in my path of faith & is glad I’m following my path…my mother on the other hand saw the Episcopal church as being a family thing. Our whole family was episcopalian & I left. That bothers my mother, but she’s very loyal. She’s been episcopalian her whole life & that is not about to change. It is more about loyalty than it is being right or wrong. I get that stubbornness from her, LOL. But yeah, a year and a half w. the church & my eyes are open wider, though I have PLENTY to learn still.

 

[onenow1]

say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?" Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER’S WORKS, St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961, 304.

QUOTE=onenow1, Once Martin,disobeyed his vow of obedience to the Church of Christ the results are apparent ! He tried to bring change from without, intead of from within the Church itself.:sad_yes:

Peace and God Bless
onenow1

 

[Jason_1977]

nice

 

[jblake]

onenow1;:

Once Martin,disobeyed his vow of obedience to the Church of Christ the results are apparent ! He tried to bring change from without, instead of from within the Church itself.:sad_yes:

Remember that Luther tried to work within the framework of the catholic church. The pope, otoh, was intent on embracing and living in sin, and rejecting the Gospel Message.

jonathon

 

[SimonArizona]

Remember that Luther tried to work within the framework of the catholic church. The pope, otoh, was intent on embracing and living in sin, and rejecting the Gospel Message.

jonathon

Thats correct. Originally Luther wanted to reform the Catholic Church from its many severe abuses. What happened is Luther decided to try and reform the doctrines that he disagreed with instead. When one teaches a faith contrary to the Catholic Faith of the Apostles, that person is ex-communicated. “have no fellowship with the man who does not follow after our tradition.”-St. Paul

Luther then decided to start teaching his doctrines outside of the Church.

 

[Jason_1977]

I’m loving these posts! very informative!!!

 

[dragon]

Hi,

Many things trouble me when it comes to relying on only one book to tell the whole story of such a huge thing as a God. If the Bible is the only book that is needed then one has to ask “Which Bible”?? Many Bibles out there and many different versions of the same Bible. When the word was first shared it was done by word of mouth because many can not read nor write. Were any of the words forgotten, changed, or the meanings changed along the way??

It was not until 360 AD, I believe, that the Church decided which books would be included within the Bible. The ones that were not included, did they have anything that would shed more light on beliefs today, or even on the days past??

If the Bible was the only thing that was needed then we would not need priests nor ministers to tells what was written, it would be self evident. Over time words change in their meaning, people make mistakes in the coping of the words, some even went as far as to put their own voice and words into the books we read today. Were any words or books destroyed because they did not follow in the path that was decided??

Perhaps we will know one day, however today that knowledge is not available to us.

Dragon

 

[Jason_1977]

well said.

 

[SimonArizona]

Hi,

Many things trouble me when it comes to relying on only one book to tell the whole story of such a huge thing as a God. If the Bible is the only book that is needed then one has to ask “Which Bible”?? Many Bibles out there and many different versions of the same Bible. When the word was first shared it was done by word of mouth because many can not read nor write. Were any of the words forgotten, changed, or the meanings changed along the way??

You are right. What we needed to know about God, Jesus told us. We need to know what Jesus taught. He placed that truth in His Church to preserve and defend it until the consummation of the world. The Bible does not say it is to be the sole rule of the faith and truth. The bible says the “Church” is the “Pillar and Foundation of the Truth.”

It was not until 360 AD, I believe, that the Church decided which books would be included within the Bible. The ones that were not included, did they have anything that would shed more light on beliefs today, or even on the days past??

Early Christians had all sorts of letters written by hundreds of bishops to hundreds of Churches. The Bible is not the complete work of Christian faith. It is very profitable for our faith, just like many other Church approved works of literature.

If the Bible was the only thing that was needed then we would not need priests nor ministers to tells what was written, it would be self evident. Over time words change in their meaning, people make mistakes in the coping of the words, some even went as far as to put their own voice and words into the books we read today. Were any words or books destroyed because they did not follow in the path that was decided??

So true, those works are just not accepted by the Church as entirely true.

Perhaps we will know one day, however today that knowledge is not available to us.

YES IT IS

 

[dragon]

So true, those works are just not accepted by the Church as entirely true.

This is where I have trouble. Men decided what was to be included in the Bible. As we know men are fallible. It was not until very much later that the Pope declared himself infallible. In times past there could be many Popes at one time just in the way the Church leaders looked at things. So right now we have a book, called the Bible, that all are suppose to believe. Translated by men, written down by men, and we are told it is the word of God.

 

[SimonArizona]

This is where I have trouble. Men decided what was to be included in the Bible. As we know men are fallible. It was not until very much later that the Pope declared himself infallible. In times past there could be many Popes at one time just in the way the Church leaders looked at things. So right now we have a book, called the Bible, that all are suppose to believe. Translated by men, written down by men, and we are told it is the word of God.

Do not let your heart be troubled. Man is fallible including the Pope. His infallibility is only when he makes a declaration of Faith, which has happened twice in Church history. And he has to be literally sitting in St. Peter’s Chair. Jesus is infallible. And you know who else is? The Holy Spirit. Jesus promised to be with his Church “all days until the end.” He further said “I will send you another helper the Spirit of Truth… I have many things still to teach you… and when He comes He will lead you into all truth.” i.e. not error. And this is evident because for 2,000 years the Catholic Faith has remained the one same faith, the Faith of the Apsotles.

If we had only the bible, sola scriptura, we’d be lost in confusion as to who’s interpretation of the bible!? But God is not the author of confusion, He placed the Faith on the Church, not on the Scriptures. The Scriptures came from the Church, produced by the Church, who can deny that? All other sects of Christianity came from the Bible.

 

[Contarini]

These questions are mainly for Protestants, I want to try to get a feel for where the different denominations stand in these two questions. I know the positions of a few but not all. Therefore, my questions are:

Is the Bible is the only rule of faith? Meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it.

No. The Bible is the supreme rule of faith but can only be rightly interpreted in the context of the historic Christian tradition and the ongoing discernment of the Christian community.

Is the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages? Is anything extraneous to the Bible simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

Everything necessary to salvation is found in Scripture. But there are many issues which Scripture does not address–at least not clearly or explicitly.

Edwin

 

[SimonArizona]

No. The Bible is the supreme rule of faith but can only be rightly interpreted in the context of the historic Christian tradition and the ongoing discernment of the Christian community.

Not so. The Bible is only as infallible as its interpreter. Where does the bible say it is the supreme rule of faith?

Everything necessary to salvation is found in Scripture.

No, we need other things like prayer.

 

[Contarini]

Remember that Luther tried to work within the framework of the catholic church. The pope, otoh, was intent on embracing and living in sin, and rejecting the Gospel Message.

That’s a caricature. Pope Leo (I presume that’s the pope you have in mind) was no saint, but it’s a mistake to boil the Reformation down to the Pope’s failings. Luther wasn’t just going up against the Pope and the Pope’s court theologians and canon lawyers. He was going up against the universities and the medieval theological tradition they represented (Luther came from that tradition but rejected it on some key points). He was going up against the Church Fathers in many ways, and explicitly admitted it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Not so. The Bible is only as infallible as its interpreter.

Says who? And why is “infallibility” the big issue here? This isn’t about epistemology. It’s about the normative criteria of Christian faith.

Where does the bible say it is the supreme rule of faith?

Since I don’t believe that everything is found in Scripture, this is a bogus question. The early and medieval Church from at least the fourth century on very clearly taught this. Earlier things were a bit more fluid because the canon had not been formed and so the “rule of faith” could be spoken of in terms of Scripture and/or oral apostolic tradition. From the fourth century on you still find Christians appealing to unwritten tradition, but only when they couldn’t make their point clearly enough from Scripture, showing that Scripture was regarded as primary. I would argue that this was true to some extent even in the second and third centuries, but that’s a trickier issue.

No, we need other things like prayer.

You are confusing “material” with “formal” sufficiency. I am not talking about what we need but about the content of Scripture.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

teak421;5723801:

I will tell you why a Church which manufactures new doctrines to order isn’t trusted. Take the Assumption of Mary for example. Not a peep was heard about it until the late fourth century, when suddenly it appears out of nowhere. So that it has any historical basis seems dubious to say the least. But then in 1950 the Pope decided it was his favourite doctrine, so now every catholic is supposed to believe it, and without a scrap of historical evidence.

A 1600-year gestation period hardly amounts to “manufacturing new doctrines to order.” I share your skepticism about the Assumption, but it’s clearly not something the Pope made up in 1950. It was a very ancient tradition by that point.

Edwin

 

[Jason_1977]

infallability is used in reference to the teachings of the church.

 

[SimonArizona]

Says who? And why is “infallibility” the big issue here? This isn’t about epistemology. It’s about the normative criteria of Christian faith.

 

[SimonArizona]

Earlier things were a bit more fluid because the canon had not been formed and so the “rule of faith” could be spoken of in terms of Scripture and/or oral apostolic tradition.

Not and/or. The Apostolic Tradition is how the Scripture is properly understood. They are hand in hand. Thats why St. Paul says “have no fellowship with the man who does not follow after our Tradition.”

The Scripture witnesses to the Faith, the Tradition witnesees to the Faith, the Scripture and Tradition witness to each other witnessing to the Faith. It’s the infallible, unbroken cycle, that is carrying Christ’s Church until the end.