Questions about Biblical Theology Alone?

[suupah]

As a “Bible Only” follower of Christ,

1

Do you believe that the Bible was written with the intention of being a comprehensive catechism on the Christian faith and the only source for all doctrine and tradition?
2

Do you believe that the writers of the bible intended it to be the supreme rule of authority on its own apart from the authority of the people the apostles appointed in the church and the traditions passed on by word of mouth?
3

If you were to ask Paul if he intended his letters to have more authority then the church; in the sense that if something is not included in his letters then it isn’t part of the original deposit of faith, what would his answer be? How about if you asked him if there were doctrines and practices that he assumed that he didn’t include in his letters?
4

Do you believe the Acts of the Apostles or the NT letters were written with the intent of being used as a comprehensive and systematic theology texts to have authority, without interpretation by men, apart from the living church?
5

Do you believe that the Bible is subject to correct interpretation in order to be profitable for doctrine? If so, Who do you personally trust to interpret the bible correctly? If not, do you think the stand alone message can appear different to people?

Thanks for taking the time to answer some or all of these questions. I am trying to “get inside the thinking” of Bible only Christians.

Note: Catholics please refrain from answering for them. i would like to hear from the Bible Christians in a non hostile environment.

 

[bengal_fan]

As a “Bible Only” follower of Christ,

well, i wouldn’t call myself a “bible only” person, and i don’t think in reality anyone is. they all rely on other people’s interpretations.

1

Do you believe that the Bible was written with the intention of being a comprehensive catechism on the Christian faith and the only source for all doctrine and tradition?

well, the bible is a series of books and letters and i don’t think that any one particular book was written with the idea that this one book or letter is the end all be all of Christianity.

2

Do you believe that the writers of the bible intended it to be the supreme rule of authority on its own apart from the authority of the people the apostles appointed in the church and the traditions passed on by word of mouth?

i believe that the apostles and their immediate “partners” in ministry (such as luke and mark) were writing thinking that they were writing down the authoritative teachings. they included what they felt was most important and necessary. i believe that God inspired many different writers because He knows that we need more than one perspective on situations. i do believe paul, peter, james, etc. would say that their letters would supercede anything that their successors would say.

3

If you were to ask Paul if he intended his letters to have more authority then the church; in the sense that if something is not included in his letters then it isn’t part of the original deposit of faith, what would his answer be? How about if you asked him if there were doctrines and practices that he assumed that he didn’t include in his letters?

i think he would say that his letters expressed the authority that the church has. i think he would say that his letters as well as those of the other apostles and their contemporaries (again, luke and mark) were written to express what was necessary for the church’s to hear directly from the apostles. obviously there were practices that weren’t included, but the necessary ones (such as how to baptize and how to conduct the Lord’s Supper) were.

4

Do you believe the Acts of the Apostles or the NT letters were written with the intent of being used as a comprehensive and systematic theology texts to have authority, without interpretation by men, apart from the living church?

again, no they didn’t think that their one (or two or three or more) letter or book that they wrote was the end all be all. and i believe they expected their letters to be read in community with all of the members of the church (local) communicating with each other and interpreting together as a community. then the leaders of those churches being in communication with leaders of the other churches.

5

Do you believe that the Bible is subject to correct interpretation in order to be profitable for doctrine? If so, Who do you personally trust to interpret the bible correctly? If not, do you think the stand alone message can appear different to people?

tricky. i do believe the correct interpretation is important. i trust history, ecumenical councils, and educated groups of individual believers with correct interpretation. i do not think there is one, stand alone body that has a monopoly on interpretation. i believe that the wider the group of Christians, the more accurate we can be. i do believe that those Christians who are apart of the interpreting should acknowledge the historic creeds to have any spiritual authority. i do think that some parts of the bible can and do appear different to different people and that is okay in some situations because of the both/and approach (i.e. the woman in rev. 12 is the church AND israel AND mary).

 

[bengal_fan]

incidentally, i don’t believe in sola scriptura (scripture as the sole authority). i believe in prima scriptura (scripture as the first and primary authority… all other authorities are subject to it).

 

[suupah]

incidentally, i don’t believe in sola scriptura (scripture as the sole authority). i believe in prima scriptura (scripture as the first and primary authority… all other authorities are subject to it).

Thanks for the great response.