Is the Bible not our one and only source?

[SabbathBlessings]

The Church is The Church. According to Jesus the Church is One, Visible, and Authoritative. There IS one true Church. I challenge you to search and find the pearl of great price.
you added (His Word).
What do you mean by His Word?

His Word is the Bible.
There is nothing in the Bible saying the Catholic church is Gods church if that's what you are implying. Gods church is not a church that changes what God has written for us.

 

[pescador]

Looks like you were the one who went off topic my friend. Not sure why you're calling me out for it.

And maybe you can explain this: I am referring to churches teaching the commandments are no longer required" then follow that with Jesus saying to "keep His commandments". That is self-contradictory!

How is that contradictory? And how is your statement Christians are under grace not under law on topic?

The OP says "is-the-bible-not-our-one-and-only-source" You discuss keeping His commandments. Where are those commandments? Those commandments are in the Bible so the point discussed is on topic.

Likewise, when I write about Christians being under grace not under law, that is also directly from the Bible. So, the Bible (rightfully) is our one and only source of God's truth in all matters, including the law and grace.

 

[concretecamper]

His Word is the Bible.

so you are adding your own twist to:

1 Corinthians 3:11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Why insert the Bible into this quote?

There is nothing in the Bible saying the Catholic church is Gods church if that's what you are implying.

All I have said is that there is one true Church. And I have challenged YOU to find it.

Gods church is not a church that changes what God has written for us.

I agree. For example, how you added (His Word).

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The OP says "is-the-bible-not-our-one-and-only-source" You discuss keeping His commandments. Where are those commandments? Those commandments are in the Bible so the point discussed is on topic.

Likewise, when I write about Christians being under grace not under law, that is also directly from the Bible. So, the Bible (rightfully) is our one and only source of God's truth in all matters, including the law and grace.

I used that as an example when I was called out by another poster when replying to the OP that I believe in sola scripture. I used that as an example why it is important to not follow churches when they deviate from the Bible and scriptures. It seems on topic to me, but I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

so you are adding your own twist to:

1 Corinthians 3:11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Why insert the Bible into this quote?

All I have said is that there is one true Church. And I have challenged YOU to find it.
I agree. For example, how you added (His Word).

Are you saying Gods Word is not the Bible?

God tells us there is a sign of who His people are in the Bible. Do you know which sign?

 

[concretecamper]

Are you saying Gods Word is not the Bible?

no, I am saying that God's Word is not limited to the Bible.

God tells us there is a sign of who His people are in the Bible. Do you know which sign?

tells us, I bet it doesnt say His people follow the Bible Alone.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

no, I am saying that God's Word is not limited to the Bible.
tells us, I bet it doesnt say His people follow the Bible Alone.

Exodus 31:13 Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you.

Ezekiel 20: 20 hallow My Sabbaths, and they will be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the Lord your God.’

Revelations 12:14 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

These verses are pretty powerful in my opinion. You see Gods church are the ones who keep all of His commandments. Going outside scripture and using your own interpretations we are warned not to do. God bless.

 

[Fidelibus]

we are all waiting.

Yes we are!............ Albion


Have a Blessed day!

 

[fhansen]

Well, we all agree that the Bible is God's word, don't we? God's! If so, how can something that ISN'T God's word be equal to it or more authoritative than it?

God's word doesn't have to be recorded on papyrus or parchment or whatever in order to be His word. As the written word, itself, attests.

 

[Albion]

God's word doesn't have to be recorded on papyrus or parchment or whatever in order to be His word. As the written word, itself, attests.

In principle, that's correct, just as we could say that God didn't have to come to us as a Hebrew baby rather than in some other kind of manifestation. He "didn't have to," just as you said.

But neither does it mean that we can pick out something else and proclaim it to be what God did instead of what he actually chose to do.

And that is what putting so called "Sacred Tradition" above or on a par with Holy Scripture represents.

 

[Butterball1]

The responses I get here may change my mind on this, but my thought is that the Bible is our point of reference and, as blasphemous as this may sound, once one has read the Bible he/she then knows as much as anyone, including men/women of clergy, about what God’s intentions are for us. I mean, the Bible is essentially all we have, right? And, as is evidenced by this site, much of the Bible is open* for interpretation. Why would one who has read the Bible need to turn to clergy unless he didn’t want to take the time to read the Bible himself? We need the advice of doctors, lawyers, mechanics, etc. because we chose not to take the time to study and learn the volumes of information required to become an expert. The Bible contains many pages, but not so many that one couldn’t read it and absorb it in less than say, a year or two. So unless clergy has secret access to some other holy books or writings not included in the Bible, why couldn’t a catholic, for example, who has diligently read his bible, claim to know as much as the Pope about the teachings of God?

I’m not saying that clergy (or the different perspectives of other Christians such as what we see here) doesn’t have its place. For one, clergy performs other important functions beyond Biblical interpretation. And I certainly don’t think it’s a bad idea to turn to clergy for Biblical advice, as we know for sure a clergyman has committed to absorbing the Bible. But for me, the advice dispensed would have to be backed up by a Biblical source/passage. And if such passage is ambiguous, then I feel it’s ok for me to adopt my own interpretation even if it’s different than what the church, or clergy, has either mandated or suggested.

Agree or not?

(* ALL christians- don’t know that “open” is the right word. “subject to”, maybe?)

The Bible is the only inspired source man has to the things in the mind of God. Man made traditions are not inspired and these man made traditions not only contradict the Bible but often contradict each other. In Romans 10:1-3 Paul lamented over the fact his brethren in the flesh, the Jews, were lost for following their own traditions (own righteousness) rather than submitting to God's righteousness.

An example of man made tradition....above you make reference to a "clergy" a few times yet the Bible does not teach there are different classes of Christians, clergy and laity. All Christians are "one" in Christ (Galatians 3:28; John 17:20-21) and each and every Christian is a priest being part of the NT priesthood (1 Peter 2:5-9). Though Paul held the office of an Apostle, he called himself a 'brother' and 'fellow servant' with other Christians as Epaphras (Colossians 1:7) Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25) Tychicus (Colossians 4:7), etc. All Christians are brothers and sisters.

The Greek word kleros (clergy) Colossians 1:12 refers to an inheritence, ALL Christians are God's lot/inheritence, not just some. Yet the word laikos (laity) is not found in the NT. But laos (people) is found in the NT referring to ALL Christians- "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people (laos); that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:" 1 Peter 2:9. In the Bible, no distinction is made between kleros and laikos for ALL Christians are kleros and loas. Romans 12:3-7 Christians have different functions but are not divided into separate classes as clergy and laity but all are servants of Christ, (Philippians 1:1; Ephesians 6:6).
Therefore there is no place for clerical titles within Christ's church:
Are Preachers To Be Called "Reverend"?

Each person can adopt their own interpretation but that does not mean each person's interpretation is correct. God's word is truth (John 17:17) and teaches 'one' system of faith (Ephesians 4:5) and not a plethora of varying, contradicting faithS. Truth by its nature is very narrow and never contradicts itself. On judgment day there will be a permanent, eternal separation from those who read and understood the Bible correctly (Ephsians 3:4) from those who did not. A separation from those who walked by the 'same rule' (Galatians 6:16; Philippians 3:16) from those that tried to change the Bible to fit a particular personal bias.

 

[fhansen]

In principle, that's correct, just as we could say that God didn't have to come to us as a Hebrew baby rather than in some other kind of manifestation. He "didn't have to," just as you said.

But neither does it mean that we can pick out something else and proclaim it to be what God did instead of what he actually chose to do.

And that is what putting so called "Sacred Tradition" above or on a par with Holy Scripture represents.

But it’s the same in either case. You pick out Sacred Scripture and proclaim it to be what God did. I pick out Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and proclaim it to be what God did. And I’ve come to believe that what He did there was quite appropriate and necessary incidentally.

 

[Albion]

But it’s the same in either case. You pick out Sacred Scripture and proclaim it to be what God did.

Do you not consider Scripture to be divinely inspired? Does not your church? Of course the answer is "yes." Therefore, that part of our debate is not in question, but only whether or not there is something else of equal value. But how would we know?

I pick out Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and proclaim it to be what God did.

Sure, and you are entitled; but you could just as easily pick out Sacred Scripture and the magic 8-ball or a Ouija Board and ask me what's wrong with doing that.

 

[pescador]

Here's the part that I think is weak. While the main point is generally okay, you cannot become an "expert" in medicine or the law by reading up on it, yet that appears to be what you think is sufficient when it comes to the Bible. And simply reading it won't make you an expert in the meaning of ancient languages, idioms, historical references, and all of that which is found on the pages of the Bible, simply by reading an English language translation.

That's why we have translations! Not many people are experts in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, or Koine Greek and have the ability to translate the many available texts into understandable English. You don't have to become an expert in the art/science of translation to understand the Bible!

The Bible has been given to all of us so that we may have unlimited access to God's Word directly, not interpreted by clergy to conform to a specific doctrinal philosophy.

 

[pescador]

The Bible is the only inspired source man has to the things in the mind of God. Man made traditions are not inspired and these man made traditions not only contradict the Bible but often contradict each other. In Romans 10:1-3 Paul lamented over the fact his brethren in the flesh, the Jews, were lost for following their own traditions (own righteousness) rather than submitting to God's righteousness.

An example of man made tradition....above you make reference to a "clergy" a few times yet the Bible does not teach there are different classes of Christians, clergy and laity. All Christians are "one" in Christ (Galatians 3:28; John 17:20-21) and each and every Christian is a priest being part of the NT priesthood (1 Peter 2:5-9). Though Paul held the office of an Apostle, he called himself a 'brother' and 'fellow servant' with other Christians as Epaphras (Colossians 1:7) Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25) Tychicus (Colossians 4:7), etc. All Christians are brothers and sisters.

The Greek word kleros (clergy) Colossians 1:12 refers to an inheritence, ALL Christians are God's lot/inheritence, not just some. Yet the word laikos (laity) is not found in the NT. But laos (people) is found in the NT referring to ALL Christians- "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people (laos); that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:" 1 Peter 2:9. In the Bible, no distinction is made between kleros and laikos for ALL Christians are kleros and loas. Romans 12:3-7 Christians have different functions but are not divided into separate classes as clergy and laity but all are servants of Christ, (Philippians 1:1; Ephesians 6:6).
Therefore there is no place for clerical titles within Christ's church:
Are Preachers To Be Called "Reverend"?

Each person can adopt their own interpretation but that does not mean each person's interpretation is correct. God's word is truth (John 17:17) and teaches 'one' system of faith (Ephesians 4:5) and not a plethora of varying, contradicting faithS. Truth by its nature is very narrow and never contradicts itself. On judgment day there will be a permanent, eternal separation from those who read and understood the Bible correctly (Ephsians 3:4) from those who did not. A separation from those who walked by the 'same rule' (Galatians 6:16; Philippians 3:16) from those that tried to change the Bible to fit a particular personal bias.

GREAT POST! This should be read and absorbed by all.

 

[Albion]

That's why we have translations! Not many people are experts in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, or Koine Greek and have the ability to translate the many available texts into understandable English. You don't have to become an expert in the art/science of translation to understand the Bible!

That looks to me to be an intermediate position on the matter. I was contending against people who say "Just read it and believe it."

For them, no aids of any sort or the help historians, linguists, or etc. is needed and, in fact, the idea of consulting such people is viewed as doubting the Bible.

 

[fhansen]

Do you not consider Scripture to be divinely inspired? Does not your church? Of course the answer is "yes." Therefore, that part of our debate is not in question, but only whether or not there is something else of equal value. But how would we know?

But wait, you haven't yet supported your claim for why you consider Scripture to be divinely inspired, or why it should necessarily be so while Tradition is not. Your consideration, itself, is a human decision and act, a tradition one could say.

Sure, and you are entitled; but you could just as easily pick out Sacred Scripture and the magic 8-ball or a Ouija Board and ask me what's wrong with doing that.

And an outsider, an atheist or non-Christian, could say you've been just as arbitrary with your choice of Scripture, with or without any other option. I'm saying that the two go hand in hand, that we really can't have one without the other.

And actually, tradition alone, some regular historical practice dating to the beginning of any human activity, could arguably have equal or more clout because it would reflect a continuous understanding of how things were/are done whereas a written description of that activity and its history could easily be misinterpreted and misapplied. We can kinda sorta attempt to mimic how stone age people lived, acted, thought, and spoke, for example, but we cannot actually go back in time and experience or taste life as they knew it to be even if we somehow had a written description of that life in our possession.

And while I don't think you believe that it would be possible to "resurrect" the Christian faith out of nothing but the bible if the faith were lost with no historical connection or legacy left other than Scripture, more and more people nonetheless seem willing to do just that. And really, at the end of the day maybe they're logically correct if Scripture is claimed to trump everything else as the rule of faith anyway, over anything that may've happened other than what was written or that happened after the times written about in the New Testament. My concern, aside from the ever-present possibility and reality of human misinterpretation, is that understanding the faith becomes reduced to a sort of intellectual enterprise: may-the-best-exegete-win. "Based on the latest knowledge of biblical languages and archeological findings we believe such and such. However, if we discover new understanding then we'll switch our beliefs on that particular matter." As if our faith could be a floating target, as it sometimes seems to be going by the variety of beliefs that many people hold.

 

[Albion]

But wait, you haven't yet supported your claim for why you consider Scripture to be divinely inspired, or why it should necessarily be so while Tradition is not. Your consideration, itself, is a human decision and act, a tradition one could say.

Do I have to prove that Jesus was the Christ, too? Or are we well past that stage of things for all the reasons we both know?

The fact is that this is our religion. I'm not debating an atheist.

IF the Bible is what it is, then it automatically is the ultimate. By definition, nothing is more authoritative than that which God himself has revealed to us. BUT if there might possibly be something else, the burden of proving it equal to the Bible falls on those who advocate for whatever it is.

And actually, tradition alone, some regular historical practice dating to the beginning of any human activity, could arguably have equal or more clout because it would reflect a continuous understanding of how things were/are done whereas a written description of that activity and its history could easily be misinterpreted and misapplied.

How things were done, though, doesn't mean that this tradition was truthful. What you're describing is the record of what was, that's all, not what was God's will or intention.

In addition, what's called "Sacred Tradition" is NOT a continuous understanding of how things were, contrary to your proposition. None of the dogmas that have been defined thanks to this system actually do meet the test of "always, ever, and by all." That's just something that the church stipulates when issuing its decree..

 

[concretecamper]

But wait, you haven't yet supported your claim for why you consider Scripture to be divinely inspired

you are quite right. Scripture is not self authenticating. We accept Scripture is divinely inspired becasue someone (other than God) said it is. If that same someone says that Sacred Tradition is another source of Divine Revelation, you've got to accept both or neither.

 

[fhansen]

Do I have to prove that Jesus was the Christ, too? Or are we well past that stage of things for all the reasons we both know?

The fact is that this is our religion. I'm not debating an atheist.

IF the Bible is what it is, then it automatically is the ultimate. By definition, nothing is more authoritative than that which God himself has revealed to us. BUT if there might possibly be something else, the burden of proving it equal to the Bible falls on those who advocate for whatever it is.

You're avoiding the question altogether. First, each of us as human beings must decide for ourselves what, if anything, is of divine origin and what is not, regardless of what anyone else or any group may've decided for themselves in the past, important and helpful as that testimony is. It doesn't matter what a religion claims until we believe it for ourselves. Secondly, as far as I'm concerned the Christian religion, emanating from both the eastern and western ancient teachings, has already spoken on this, and both Scripture and Tradition, by definition, are together considered to be the ultimate.

How things were done, though, doesn't mean that this tradition was truthful. What you're describing is the record of what was, that's all, not what was God's will or intention.

In addition, what's called "Sacred Tradition" is NOT a continuous understanding of how things were, contrary to your proposition. None of the dogmas that have been defined thanks to this system actually do meet the test of "always, ever, and by all." That's just something that the church stipulates when issuing its decree..

The problem remains that on many things we cannot know how they were done-or believed-for certain going by Scripture alone. And Tradition doesn't include only those things declared to be dogma. Here's how it works-and how it can contribute to our understanding:

*Going by Scripture alone I may or may not believe that baptism is necessary for regeneration, or, for instance, that Jesus was speaking of amniotic fluid in John 3:5. But with tradition aiding us we know the original intent, by the continuous practice of the church.

*Going by Scripture alone we may well decide that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, or that He's not. With the input of Tradition there's no question about what the churches originally taught and believed; we know that He is present IOW.

*Going by Scripture alone people have argued plausibly enough that Jesus is not God. But the church ruled on this matter, creating the Nicene creed in the process, as in similar fashion it ruled later when assembling the canon of Scripture. The New Testament, as with the Old Testament, consisted of a variety of writings from a variety of authors for a variety of purposes, writings that the church held on to and valued for their instructions and teachings, the authors considered to be inspired by God in producing them. This canonization required human input, recognition, acceptance, et al, and is part of church tradition.

*Going by Scripture alone people can argue validly for believer's Baptism and against infant Baptism but the church has always practiced infant baptism as far as we know, with no objections to this practice from early historical accounts, and before Augustine's later input on the matter.

*Going by Scripture alone we can argue all day long about whether or not one can have perfect assurance of salvation, whether salvation can be lost, whether man is obligated to be and act personally righteous, etc, but the churches have always agreed on these matters in the past.