Is the Bible not our one and only source?

Albion · Feb 18, 2021

fhansen said:
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.

Well, I didn't avoid that. It was a major point of emphasis.

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.

Believe whatever you want. I'm not especially interested in any religious doctrine just because Buddhism is big on it. And the same goes for Papal decrees. We were talking here about the authority of the Bible, and that is what I thought we were going to continue to discuss.

fhansen said:
*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.

Naaaa. This ^ only shows me that you don't know what (Sacred) Tradition is all about. It's not about traditions. It's about an alternative to the Bible, a supplement to the Bible.

Mere traditions are altogether a different matter and, if understood properly, are not in competition with Scripture but can indeed shed light upon the meaning of Scriptural passages. But that isn't what we were discussing when we had alternative sources of authority as our topic.

concretecamper · Feb 18, 2021

Albion said:
It's about an alternative to the Bible, a supplement to the Bible.

Albion said:
Naaaa. This ^ only shows me that you don't know what (Sacred) Tradition is all about

I used your own words to respond to this silly statement. ^_^

from the mouth of babes.

YOU have just shown us all that YOU have no idea what Sacrad Tradition is all about.

pescador · Feb 18, 2021

fhansen said:
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.

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.

The Catholic church is just one of many denominations, each with it's own beliefs, but the Bible stands alone as God's perfect truth.

Sola scriptura! Next...

fhansen · Feb 18, 2021

pescador said:
The Catholic church is just one of many denominations, each with it's own beliefs, but the Bible stands alone as God's perfect truth.

Sola scriptura! Next...

Yes, and the many different denominations gives dramatic testimony to the fact that, by the Bible alone man cannot be certain of the perfect truth- which stands there alone. That variation -away from the historic faith which was based on Tradition supported by Scripture- is virtually all due to private, individual reading and interpretation of Scripture.

fhansen · Feb 18, 2021

Albion said:
Well, I didn't avoid that. It was a major point of emphasis.

No, you didn't address why you believe Scripture to be inspired-and then why you believe Tradition not to be. You've only stated as a presupposition your belief that Scripture is divinely inspired.

Albion said:
Believe whatever you want. I'm not especially interested in any religious doctrine just because Buddhism is big on it. And the same goes for Papal decrees. We were talking here about the authority of the Bible, and that is what I thought we were going to continue to discuss.

That's what we've been discussing-why the bible can't be our one and only source in this case. That's not what I want to believe- just the only logical position one can hold. And you, as well, can "believe whatever you want".

Albion said:
Naaaa. This ^ only shows me that you don't know what (Sacred) Tradition is all about. It's not about traditions. It's about an alternative to the Bible, a supplement to the Bible.

Mere traditions are altogether a different matter and, if understood properly, are not in competition with Scripture but can indeed shed light upon the meaning of Scriptural passages. But that isn't what we were discussing when we had alternative sources of authority as our topic.

Naaaa. It's more than that-and more than what you apparently "know". And I wasn't speaking of "mere traditions" here, which the Church agrees are not binding. Baptismal regeneration, for example, is not a mere tradition. From the catechism:

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes." "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."

Now it'd be beneficial to reread what I've written in light of the above.

Albion · Feb 19, 2021

fhansen said:
No, you didn't address why you believe Scripture to be inspired-and then why you believe Tradition not to be. You've only stated as a presupposition your belief that Scripture is divinely inspired.

I'm a Christian. You're a Christian. I am not going to prove to you that Christ is worth believing--not as a way of arguing that what God says is more authoritative than what any other source may say to us.

IF one believes in Christ, he accepts Holy Scripture. You've already said that you do. The question here is entirely about any other sources of information being the equal of divine revelation.

I say "no." Now, if you wish, you can offer your own reasons for thinking the opinions of Men to be the equal of God's word.

And I wasn't speaking of "mere traditions" here,...

Actually, you were. If you look again at what you wrote, that's what it was. You may think that those alleged traditions were unusually compelling or whatever, but it wasn't Sacred Tradition, the Catholic response to Sola Scriptura, that your examples were dealing with.

BobRyan · Feb 19, 2021

Albion said: ↑
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?

fhansen said:
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.

ok ... agreed. For example

Genesis 15:1 After these things the Word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying, “Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; Your reward shall be very great.”

1 Samuel 15:10
Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying...,
2 Samuel 7:4
But in the same night, the word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying,
2 Samuel 24:11
When David got up in the morning, the word of the Lord came to Gad the prophet, David’s seer, saying,

Neither Gad nor Nathan write any book of the Bible.

At the time God's Word came to Samuel and Abraham - it had not been written anywhere.

Does God's Word not "exist" as God's Word until some scribe first writes it?? I think we know that the answer to that is no.

Agabus is a prophet in the NT that does not write a single book of the Bible

Jonah was already a prophet before God's Word came to Him for a message to Ninevah?

fhansen · Feb 19, 2021

Albion said:
I'm a Christian. You're a Christian. I am not going to prove to you that Christ is worth believing--not as a way of arguing that what God says is more authoritative than what any other source may say to us.

IF one believes in Christ, he accepts Holy Scripture. You've already said that you do. The question here is entirely about any other sources of information being the equal of divine revelation.

I say "no." Now, if you wish, you can offer your own reasons for thinking the opinions of Men to be the equal of God's word.

If you can't answer the question then there's no reason for me to answer the question about why Tradition should be held on equal grounds as Scripture. They both mean believing in Christ, hearing His word. And the reason for believing in both is the same. We don't, or shouldn't, as humans believe simply because we're told to, but because we've come to trust, for ourselves, source(s) of divine revelation in this case. You choose to limit the source to Scripture, arbitrarily I might add.

Albion said:
Actually, you were. If you look again at what you wrote, that's what it was. You may think that those alleged traditions were unusually compelling or whatever, but it wasn't Sacred Tradition, the Catholic response to Sola Scriptura, that your examples were dealing with.

Well...it most certainly was, as defined by the Catholic church in the teaching quoted from the catechism.

Albion · Feb 19, 2021

fhansen said:
If you can't answer the question then there's no reason for me to answer the question about why Tradition should be held on equal grounds as Scripture. They both mean believing in Christ, hearing His word.

No, they don't. Sacred Tradition, so called, is simply a contrivance, a theory concocted in order to justify the institutional church doing whatever it wants.

BobRyan · Feb 19, 2021

fhansen said:
If you can't answer the question then there's no reason for me to answer the question about why Tradition should be held on equal grounds as Scripture.

Question: When we look at Christ's teaching in Mark 7:6-13 do we see Him using the principle "tradition is equal to scripture" in your POV?

Mark 7:6-13
6 But He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

BobRyan · Feb 19, 2021

fhansen said:
Yes, and the many different denominations gives dramatic testimony to the fact that, by the Bible alone man cannot be certain of the perfect truth-

All denominations have at least some tradition -- the argument that they have no tradition so then that is why they are getting some Bible doctrine incorrect, is not logical.. There are those who are held up as great scholars and theologians "Bible teachers" if you will, and the members of those denominations (be they Catholic are Protestant or ... ) quote not only from the Bible but also from those highly respected scholars/theologians/Bible Teachers. There is no "shortage" of that sort of thing.

But ALL doctrine and tradition must be tested "sola scriptura" by the written Word of God (Acts 17:11, Gal 1:6-9) -- but if your view of scripture itself is flawed then what you judge against it will have a skewed standard that it is being compared against.

Scripture itself is infallible. So that means that two members each of a different denomination have the opportunity of studying the Bible together and find more truth than was contained in either of their denominations or even both denominations combined.

fhansen · Feb 19, 2021

BobRyan said:
Question: When we look at Christ's teaching in Mark 7:6-13 do we see Him using the principle "tradition is equal to scripture" in your POV?

Of course. Either one can convey a command-and not a tradition of man. Scripture affirms that not all teachings need be or were written. And certainly the gospel was preached before any of the new Testament was written-and way before we actually had a bible that contained those writings which were determined to be inspired, determined by the church I might add, as part of her Tradition.

Grace ambassador · Feb 19, 2021

Is the Bible not our one and only source?

Grace and Peace, Precious friend(s). A great question, and probably
The First that needs to be properly answered Before we can move along
to the others of Which, How to "study" IT the Right Way, And Most
Importantly, What to "believe, obey, and practice," Correct?

So, can we fallible {sinful} humankind "Add any other source," as equal
or Even superior to IT, OR: is IT Actually our Only Infallible, Inspired,
And Profitable Final Authority for faith and practice?

What Saith The Scripture?
------------

God’s PRESERVED WORD!:

”The WORDS Of The LORD are Pure WORDS: as silver tried
in a furnace of earth, Purified Seven Times. Thou Shalt Keep THEM,
O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE THEM from this generation for ever.”
(Psa 12 : 6-7 KJB!)

THEY Are Definitely somewhere, in today’s generation, Correct?
So, IF we are Conforming "our ways/thoughts" TO: HIS WAYS/THOUGHTS,
WHY would we Ever CONFUSE IT {God’s PRESERVED And Holy Word!}

with "man's {Very} sacred TRADITIONAL ways"? i.e.:

UNinspired writings, NDEs/other experiences, emotions,
rituals/ceremonies, visions, false prophecies, speculations,
guessing, false tongues, fanaticism, fake power healers,
false raisers of the dead, Internet videos, New Modern
“bible” Perversions, hypotheticals, bad interpretations,
assumptions, conjecture, imagination/dreams, logic, etc. etc. etc.:

As our well-known adversary does:

a) questioning IT, b) adding to IT, c) subtracting from IT,
d) watering IT down, AND, Even DENYING IT?

Why?:

God's Word Is ABOVE All Else

"I will worship toward Thy holy temple, and praise Thy HOLY
Name for Thy LovingKindness and for Thy TRUTH: for Thou
Hast MAGNIFIED Thy WORD Above All Thy Name!"
( Psa 138 : 2 KJB! )

Seriously, Precious friend(s), you Can’t really believe “exta-biblical sources”
are “ABOVE ALL Of God’s HOLY Name,” Can you?

THE Very Trustworthy God Says!:

”For MY Thoughts Are Not your thoughts, Neither are your ways
MY Ways, Saith The LORD!” (Isa 55 : 8 KJB!)
+
“And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to
myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might Learn in us

Not To Think Above That Which Is WRITTEN,

that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.”
(1 Cor 4 : 6 KJB!)

OUR “erroneous” thinking then, produces mass Confusion/Disastrous results, as
Clearly Evidenced in “christendom’s” Severe Division/strife/envy/backbiting, And,
Worst of all = PRIDE! {THE sin God’s Hates Most?}, Correct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:

Giving equal/Higher Priority to Extra-biblical sources Is Idolatry, Correct?
We DO Recall Satan Said: “I WILL BE HIGHER than God,” do we not?
---------------------------------
Precious friend(s), Be Blessed, In CHRIST {The Living WORD}, And
In All Inspired/Profitable Scripture {HIS Written WORD} Of Truth!

“To The Praise And The Glory Of HIS {Amazing} GRACE!”

fhansen · Feb 19, 2021

BobRyan said:
All denominations have at least some tradition -- the argument that they have no tradition so then that is why they are getting some Bible doctrine incorrect, is not logical..

You should know that we're not speaking of traditions that have arisen in the last 500 or so years. And any entity, the CC included, which has any time under its belt will naturally develop traditions which generally aren't taken seriously as having anything to do with being God's revealed word. The Tradition spoken of by the church in both the east and west simply includes those teachings, beliefs, and practices, not necessarily written, that were handed down from the beginning.

BobRyan said:
But ALL doctrine and tradition must be tested "sola scriptura" by the written Word of God (Acts 17:11, Gal 1:6-9) -- but if your view of scripture itself is flawed then what you judge against it will have a skewed standard that it is being compared against.

That's nonsense. The interpreters are flawed, which his why we have disagreement on Scriptural meaning and why the church that received and carried the truth from the beginning has any real chance or position from which to know, to know the truth about what Sola Scriptura advocates argue among themselves over. You, yourself, diverge quite far on many points from other SS adherents on this very thread. And what would your reasoning be? That they're wrong- wrongly interpreting Scripture. And while you deny the Catholic doctrine of infallibility you effectively act as if your interpretation is, indeed, infallible.

And while Scripture is inerrant, it simply was never intended, including the new Testament, to serve as a catechism (which is how many attempt to use it), but rather consisted of a group of writings including eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life and teachings along with letters, etc, that addressed various controversies as well as needs, questions, instructions and admonishments for churches and believers. Not everything was necessarily even intended to be recorded-or needed to be.

Anyway, Scripture is often quite vague or even seemingly ambiguous or contradictory on many matters-not always easy to understand on all points in any case. And that's just honesty. As you well know many of "those highly respected scholars/theologians/Bible Teachers" will disagree with each other on important matters of the faith.

BobRyan · Feb 19, 2021

BobRyan said:
Question: When we look at Christ's teaching in Mark 7:6-13 do we see Him using the principle "tradition is equal to scripture" in your POV?

Mark 7:6-13
6 But He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

fhansen said:
Of course.

Where does Jesus claim He is appealing to Tradition as equal to scripture in ...

Mark 7:6-13
6 But He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Here is where the details matter for this question.

=====================================

fhansen said:
Of course.
Scripture affirms that not all teachings need be or were written.

John said that Jesus spoke more teaching than is found in the gospel - but in the example above we see Jesus slam-hammering tradition "sola scriptura" when we look at the words "in the text". I don't see any way around that detail.

fhansen · Feb 19, 2021

BobRyan said:
Where does Jesus claim He is appealing to Tradition as equal to scripture in ...

Mark 7:6-13
6 But He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Here is where the details matter for this question.

=====================================

John said that Jesus spoke more teaching than is found in the gospel - but in the example above we see Jesus slam-hammering tradition "sola scriptura" when we look at the words "in the text". I don't see any way around that detail.

Sacred Tradition is referring to the "more", not the man man-made stuff-or "traditions of men". We're not talking about "your tradition", but to His Tradition.

At any rate, a single, visible entity with a unified body of beliefs that God established and guides in order to at least keep the faith free from doctrinal error is logically necessary, and realistic, an entity that can trace its lineage back through to the beginning. And all of us whose Christian origins began in the west trace their own legacy directly or indirectly back through the Catholic Church, like it or not. So in that sense we’re all one Church at the end of the day in my opinion, even as SDAs and some others might prefer to solidly distance themselves from among those ranks, and perhaps consider themselves to exclusively be the present day continuation of that particular entity God established at the beginning.

But either way I would look for that church, and look at the churches that do have a continuous unchanged lineage (I know, it’s popular to point to a major change in the Catholic Church that supposedly occurred about 1700 years ago according to pop-mythology, but didn’t), and if the west is objectionable for whatever reason then I’d look to the east. Without Sacred Tradition we have no sensible, practical compliment to Scripture that can offer the guidance of actual experience when questions arise; instead we mainly have people picking up the book centuries after the fact and in virtual isolation deeming themselves qualified to understand everything it means to say, with their best shot at interpretation. And without the church we have no mechanism, no access to a voice that can authoritatively resolve questions when they inevitably arise. And so there would've been no canon of Scripture assembled (the bible didn't fall complete from the sky), no doctrine of the Trinity as we know it. There would've been a free-for-all as there is now, fostered by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Daniel Marsh · Feb 20, 2021

Hanging by a Thread said:
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?

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

Huh?

Is the Bible not our one and only source?

Facilitator

Member of His Church

Wise old man

Oldbie

Oldbie

Facilitator

Junior Member

Oldbie

Facilitator

Junior Member

Junior Member

Oldbie

Chris Endrizzi

Oldbie

Junior Member

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Similar threads