Sources Other Than the Bible?

[Zooey]

When I was a Protestant, I used Strong’s Concordance, Who’s Who in the Bible (Reader’s Digest), Jesus and His Times (Reader’s Digest), The Times Atlas of the Bible, The Revised Common Lectionary, The Whole People of God (Sunday School curriculum), The Theology of the Sacraments by D. M. Baillie, and Harper’s Bible Dictionary.

I was not a “sola scriptura” Protestant, though, by any means. I believed in the four Weslyan pillars - Scripture, tradition, experience, and reason - all of which eventually led me to the Catholic Church.

My library has expanded considerably, since then.

There you go!! I was ready to point out that Methodists do use tradition, & explain the quadrilateral, & somebody got ahead of me!!

 

[Zooey]

no doubt. One of the many things I’ve learned here is that sola scripture is a hot button issue between different sects of christanity. I never even heard of the term until I started on these boards. I was also surprised to see the passion different protestants, christians and catholics bring to their debates with each other. I assumed that since everyone (more or less) believed Jesus was God, that all other differences were minor.

Of course, as someone who has argued endless with other Jews about one aspect of Judaism or another, it shouldn’t surprise me.

Ah well, you know, Jacob wrestled with God; the rest of us wrestle with one another!!

 

[hermitcrab]

See my early post also… why accept second hand thoughts filtered through another human mind when you can have fresh springs of living water…

As a born again believer, I use no outside sources to help me read Scripture … the Holy Spirit is my guide.

Charlye

 

[Valke2]

See my early post also… why accept second hand thoughts filtered through another human mind when you can have fresh springs of living water…

If you use no outside sources to help you with scripture, why are you on these boards? It seems that you are at least using the internet to help develop your ideas/thoughts concerning God. Does your minister (?) give sermons? If so, why? Does your bible have footnotes? Do you read them? IF so, why?

i find it hard to understand how a theology born at least 2,000 years ago can remain in a vaccum. The evolution of language alone would require some commentary. (BTW, are you reading scripture in its original language? If not, aren’t you implicitly using an outside source?

 

[Allweather]

I have many other books in my library … but when it comes to undersanding Scripture, I need no others. The Holy Spirit was given to us when Jesus went to be with the Father and it is He who brings to our remembrance all that Jesus said and did. He would never lead us into error.

Charlye

(p.s. I’m a “sister”)

Maybe this question has been asked earlier and I missed it, so I’ll ask it again. Actually two questions.

First, how do you know that you aren’t “understanding” Scripture in light of those books you’ve already read? Or for that matter, sermons you’ve heard, lectures you’ve attended, brothers and sisters you’ve spoken with, etc? Are you able to disconnect all that you’ve learned from other sources so that when you read Scripture you do so with a clean memory bank?

Second, if it is true that “it is He who brings to our remembrance all that Jesus said and did. He would never lead us into error.” how do you explain all the varying interpretations by people who are reading and interpreting without reference to any authority, such as is supposed by my first question?

 

[Allweather]

If you use no outside sources to help you with scripture, why are you on these boards? It seems that you are at least using the internet to help develop your ideas/thoughts concerning God. Does your minister (?) give sermons? If so, why? Does your bible have footnotes? Do you read them? IF so, why?

i find it hard to understand how a theology born at least 2,000 years ago can remain in a vaccum. The evolution of language alone would require some commentary. (BTW, are you reading scripture in its original language? If not, aren’t you implicitly using an outside source?

I see we asked pretty much the same question at the same moment. I agree with you Valke2. I don’t think it is possible. That gets to the heart of sola scriptura. “They” say scripture alone, but in reality they are being informed just as much as any other Bible reader-interpreter. It isn’t a question of Bible alone, it is a question of who’s gonna do the interpreting.

 

[rr1213]

A sola scriptura approach does not preclude one from looking at other sources in determining the correct interpretation of Scripture. I might look at the writings of John Wesley, or Calvin, or C.S. Lewis, or JPII regarding a particular bible passage. Why? Because all of these men were holier, more learned and smarter than I am. It would be foolish to think that I would get it right all the time and foolish to reject the counsel of people who are wiser than me. Nonetheless, the emphasis is on correctly discerning Scripture, as opposed to following the teachings of the Magisterium on account of the (perceived) authority of the Magisterium. In other words, the writings I would review are persuasive, or not, based on their intrinsic worth not simply because they were written on the authority of Wesley, or Lewis, or JPII.

 

[Valke2]

A sola scriptura approach does not preclude one from looking at other sources in determining the correct interpretation of Scripture. I might look at the writings of John Wesley, or Calvin, or C.S. Lewis, or JPII regarding a particular bible passage. Why? Because all of these men were holier, more learned and smarter than I am. It would be foolish to think that I would get it right all the time and foolish to reject the counsel of people who are wiser than me. Nonetheless, the emphasis is on correctly discerning Scripture, as opposed to following the teachings of the Magisterium on account of the (perceived) authority of the Magisterium. In other words, the writings I would review are persuasive, or not, based on their intrinsic worth not simply because they were written on the authority of Wesley, or Lewis, or JPII.

that makes more sense

 

[hermitcrab]

I am here simply to share some Christian fellowship…

Not a vacuum; are you saying that Jesus is not alive to communciate with those He loves and who love Him?

Are you putting human communication above that? Because I cannot do that…

I had the great blessing to live in a very isolated place with no books/internet etc for a couple of decades, alone and mostly in silence. No Church or minister etc thus. simply the Bible, without footnotes, and prayer.

So now I simply continue on that path; asking questions here and offering answers when I can.

If you use no outside sources to help you with scripture, why are you on these boards? It seems that you are at least using the internet to help develop your ideas/thoughts concerning God. Does your minister (?) give sermons? If so, why? Does your bible have footnotes? Do you read them? IF so, why?

i find it hard to understand how a theology born at least 2,000 years ago can remain in a vaccum. The evolution of language alone would require some commentary. (BTW, are you reading scripture in its original language? If not, aren’t you implicitly using an outside source?

 

[Allweather]

…the emphasis is on correctly discerning Scripture, as opposed to following the teachings of the Magisterium on account of the (perceived) authority of the Magisterium. In other words, the writings I would review are persuasive, or not, based on their intrinsic worth not simply because they were written on the authority of Wesley, or Lewis, or JPII.

I know my questions are very, very elementary, but I’ve never had this explained to me to my complete satisfaction, and now that this is coming up, I hope to get a little more clarification. THE MAIN ISSUE for me coming out of a non-denom Protestant sect which taught personal Bible interpretation with discipleship oversight by “someone” was that I saw a lot of fracuring going on around me. My own group broke up over an argument about the meaning and efficacy of baptism. It seemed very obvious to me that everyone was submitted to some teacher or group of teachers, not just those found in the Scriptures. It then became, for me, a question of which teachers were I going to submit to. I am not a Bible scholar, and do not have any hopes of ever becoming one, and yet among seriously well-qualified Bible scholars there are a dizzying array of interpretations and denominational affiliations.

It seems to me, based on what you’ve written, quoted in part above, is that you are submitting to someone, even if it is only yourself and your own personal assessment of “intrinsic worth.” How are you able to trust your own judgemental abilities in these areas of Scripture and doctrine? How are you able to trust the others to whom you submit?

 

[mrs_abbott]

ITHE MAIN ISSUE for me coming out of a non-denom Protestant sect which taught personal Bible interpretation with discipleship oversight by “someone” was that I saw a lot of fracuring going on around me. My own group broke up over an argument about the meaning and efficacy of baptism. It seemed very obvious to me that everyone was submitted to some teacher or group of teachers, not just those found in the Scriptures. It then became, for me, a question of which teachers were I going to submit to. I am not a Bible scholar, and do not have any hopes of ever becoming one, and yet among seriously well-qualified Bible scholars there are a dizzying array of interpretations and denominational affiliations.

This is a big reason why I am Catholic. I like knowing that there is a solid “entity” that I can always trust for biblical interpretations. Granted, I read the Bible on my own and THEN compare it with what the CC teaches so that I can better understand the Bible on my own.

 

[rr1213]

I know my questions are very, very elementary, but I’ve never had this explained to me to my complete satisfaction, and now that this is coming up, I hope to get a little more clarification. THE MAIN ISSUE for me coming out of a non-denom Protestant sect which taught personal Bible interpretation with discipleship oversight by “someone” was that I saw a lot of fracuring going on around me. My own group broke up over an argument about the meaning and efficacy of baptism. It seemed very obvious to me that everyone was submitted to some teacher or group of teachers, not just those found in the Scriptures. It then became, for me, a question of which teachers were I going to submit to. I am not a Bible scholar, and do not have any hopes of ever becoming one, and yet among seriously well-qualified Bible scholars there are a dizzying array of interpretations and denominational affiliations.

It seems to me, based on what you’ve written, quoted in part above, is that you are submitting to someone, even if it is only yourself and your own personal assessment of “intrinsic worth.” How are you able to trust your own judgemental abilities in these areas of Scripture and doctrine? How are you able to trust the others to whom you submit?

First of all, most Scripture is not that difficult to read or to understand. Bear in mind that, with the New Testament at least, the authors were writing for an audience that was not learned nor wise by the world’s standards. See 1 Corinthians 1: 26-27 (“Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong”).

So, it is only with respect to certain passages of the bible where meaning becomes a problem and the aid of a good commentary is useful. Ultimately, though, a Christian relies on the Holy Spirit in guiding him to discern the meaning of Scripture. This understanding can also be guided by learned Christians whom you trust. Or, if you are a Catholic Christian, you rely on the authority of the Magisterium in interpreting Scripture. A key difference between the Protestant and Catholic approaches is when your understanding, as a reader, departs from the understanding of the commentary. A Protestant is likely to say “huh, well I don’t buy that because it makes no sense and seems to contradict what is stated in the bible passage” while, in contrast, a Catholic in a similar situation is called upon to say “huh, well I don’t understand that teaching, it makes no sense to me, but if that is what the Church teaches then it must be true”.

 

[Allweather]

rr, I agree that much (I’m not sure about “most”) NT Scripture is easy to understand and can be taken at face value. Still, there are many very significant disagreements between Christians. For instance, John 6 discourse about the Body and Blood, etc. You had some people in the 16th century come up with new interpretations that caused a break-up in the unity of western European Christianity, it seems to me in disobedience to the prayers and desires of Jesus who, later in John, called for UNITY among Christians, that unity being a sign to the world. So there are these things that divide.

How can one trust one’s own judgement? I trust myself least among all men, probably because I know myself so well, and know how foolish and miscalculating I usually am. I’m a lot more comfortable trusting the judgements of the Christians who’ve lived for 2k years before me, reading, interpreting, living out the Christian life in the midst of turmoil and persecution, as well as dealing with the personal sins of the flesh.

 

[rr1213]

rr, I agree that much (I’m not sure about “most”) NT Scripture is easy to understand and can be taken at face value.

I’d say most scripture. Again, remember the audience for whom it was written. Paul was talking to real people, many of whom in today’s world would probably be described as “salt of the earth” folks who make a living by the sweat of their brow and the work of their hands. Them more than the rulers, scholars, wisemen and sophisticates of the day.

Still, there are many very significant disagreements between Christians. For instance, John 6 discourse about the Body and Blood, etc. You had some people in the 16th century come up with new interpretations that caused a break-up in the unity of western European Christianity, it seems to me in disobedience to the prayers and desires of Jesus who, later in John, called for UNITY among Christians, that unity being a sign to the world. So there are these things that divide.

Yes, and it is no doubt a serious sin that causes much grief to God.

How can one trust one’s own judgement? I trust myself least among all men, probably because I know myself so well, and know how foolish and miscalculating I usually am. I’m a lot more comfortable trusting the judgements of the Christians who’ve lived for 2k years before me, reading, interpreting, living out the Christian life in the midst of turmoil and persecution, as well as dealing with the personal sins of the flesh.

Believe me, I hear you. We should be very careful when our relatively unlearned interpretations of Scripture vary from the interpretations of the Saints.

 

[charlye]

Maybe this question has been asked earlier and I missed it, so I’ll ask it again. Actually two questions.

First, how do you know that you aren’t “understanding” Scripture in light of those books you’ve already read? Or for that matter, sermons you’ve heard, lectures you’ve attended, brothers and sisters you’ve spoken with, etc? Are you able to disconnect all that you’ve learned from other sources so that when you read Scripture you do so with a clean memory bank?

Second, if it is true that “it is He who brings to our remembrance all that Jesus said and did. He would never lead us into error.” how do you explain all the varying interpretations by people who are reading and interpreting without reference to any authority, such as is supposed by my first question?

Those other books contained in my library, the sermons, lectures, etc. … all are to be filtered through sacred Scripture. If there’s something that contradicts God’s holy word, then it is simply dismissed. My “disconnect” button works just fine.

As far as your second question, it is true that the Holy Spirit brings to our remembrance all that Jesus said and did … (John 14:26). God has said it … case closed! Notice that He didn’t include any other “outside” sources for His revelations. Please refer to what I said about relying only on the Holy Spirit to guide the believer. When He is not part of the process, errors and varying interpretations ultimately occur.

Charlye

 

[charlye]

This is a big reason why I am Catholic. I like knowing that there is a solid “entity” that I can always trust for biblical interpretations. Granted, I read the Bible on my own and THEN compare it with what the CC teaches so that I can better understand the Bible on my own.

Are you saying, mrs_abbott, that the catholic church is the solid “entity” that you rely on?

Charlye

 

[mrs_abbott]

Are you saying, mrs_abbott, that the catholic church is the solid “entity” that you rely on?

Charlye

Yes, what about it?

 

[charlye]

Yes, what about it?

What about the Holy Spirit?

Charlye

 

[RNRobert]

What about the Holy Spirit?

Charlye

Yes, we have the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit doesn’t give all believers the same gift. Not all are teachers, apostles, etc. Remember, it is the Church, not the Bible, that is the “pillar and bulwark of our faith.”

 

[mrs_abbott]

What about the Holy Spirit?

Charlye

Of course, the Holy Spirit is ALWAYS there to rely on! First and foremost!!!