Do you believe the Bible alone?

[Athanasius377]

I think the discussion once again involves a misrepresentation of what Sola Scriptura is and is not. When I say that I believe in Sola Scriptura I do not mean that I believe the Bible alone. None of the Magisterial reformers ever thought such a thing and rightly condemned such belief. A good summary can be found in the Anglican 39 articles of religion. There are other sources that say roughly the same thing but this is the formulation I am most familiar with.

From the 39 Articles of Religion:

Article VI: Of the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. . . .

The article then goes on to state which books make up the canon of Scripture. The point isn't that a believer in Sola Scriptura doesn't acknowledge the role of tradition but it cannot have a greater or equal authority than Scripture.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I think the discussion once again involves a misrepresentation of what Sola Scriptura is and is not. When I say that I believe in Sola Scriptura I do not mean that I believe the Bible alone. None of the Magisterial reformers ever thought such a thing and rightly condemned such belief. A good summary can be found in the Anglican 39 articles of religion. There are other sources that say roughly the same thing but this is the formulation I am most familiar with.

From the 39 Articles of Religion:

Article VI: Of the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. . . .

The article then goes on to state which books make up the canon of Scripture. The point isn't that a believer in Sola Scriptura doesn't acknowledge the role of tradition but it cannot have a greater or equal authority than Scripture.

Yet without tradition the scripture would not be available to us in the form we have now.

 

[Vivat Christus Rex]

We can take your question just as it is written, but I suspect that you think you are addressing Sola Scriptura when you say "believe the Bible alone." If so, you may be confused as to what is meant by that expression.

I certainly do believe that Holy Scripture is the highest authority for determining essential doctrine; and I do not think that "tradition" is equally authoritative. Anyone who has accepted the claim that tradition is, in fact, the equal of Scripture, or that some church organization can create dogma on its own, of course gets it from a misreading of...you guessed it--the Bible.

Hang on not so fast. I actually believe opposite that view point. With out tradition, oral and liturgical, the words of the Bible would have never been produced the faith would have died out one or two generations after Jesus ascended. The cannon of the Bible did not come about until the 4th century and even then only the educated or 1%ers as we like to call them today could read it. In fact until the education in the late 1800s started teaching all people how to read it was completely oral and tradition. But now that everyone learns how to read many goto interpreting the scripture the way their life has illumined it as opposed to how the Church has studied and pronounced it over 2000 years.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hang on not so fast. I actually believe opposite that view point. With out tradition, oral and liturgical, the words of the Bible would have never been produced the faith would have died out one or two generations after Jesus ascended. The cannon of the Bible did not come about until the 4th century and even then only the educated or 1%ers as we like to call them today could read it. In fact until the education in the late 1800s started teaching all people how to read it was completely oral and tradition. But now that everyone learns how to read many goto interpreting the scripture the way their life has illumined it as opposed to how the Church has studied and pronounced it over 2000 years.

I always find these assertions inaccurate in the extreme. They completely ignore the Old Testament which had nothing to do with Christianity in its origins. It was written entirely without the aid of the Christian church or any of its traditions.

 

[Emmy]

Dear Markwsmith2020. The Bible is God`s Word to us, and I do believe what the Bible tells us. Jesus told us in Matthew 22: 35-40: " The first and great Commandment is: Love God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. The second is like it; love thy neighbour as thyself." In verse 40 we are told: On these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." God is Love, and God wants loving sons and daughters.
The Bible tells us in Matthew 7; 7-10: On these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. Short and to the point. We are God`s sons and daughters, and we have to give up all selfish and unloving words and attitudes. Jesus our Saviour will lead us all the way, JESUS IS THE WAY. Love is very catching, and love will give us all we ask for. Let us all try and be the men and women which God wants, Love is VERY catching, and love will conquer all obstacles. Jesus our Saviour died that we might live, and Satan and all his followers will run away from LOVE. Why not give it a try, Mark. I say this with love. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

 

[Athanasius377]

Hang on not so fast. I actually believe opposite that view point. With out tradition, oral and liturgical, the words of the Bible would have never been produced the faith would have died out one or two generations after Jesus ascended. The cannon of the Bible did not come about until the 4th century and even then only the educated or 1%ers as we like to call them today could read it. In fact until the education in the late 1800s started teaching all people how to read it was completely oral and tradition. But now that everyone learns how to read many goto interpreting the scripture the way their life has illumined it as opposed to how the Church has studied and pronounced it over 2000 years.

I appreciate your candor because this is what the thread all about. First, this position seems like the standard Catholic Answers reply when challenged on the Roman elevation of tradition over scripture. First, this is an outright falsehood. The church merely recognized that certain books were said to be inspired (greek theopneustos) or "God Breathed". This process occurred over a period of time but for the most part 22 of the 27 books were never really in doubt. Of the books for consideration were the 27 books we have in the New Testament and a few other texts that didn't make it such as the "Shepard of Hermas", the "Didache", etc. The New Testament was largely in place by the second century although it would not exist for the most part in once place. That would take the ending of the persecution before the church could finally collate and bind them into a codex. The books existed on scrolls of papyrus and vellum that were exchanged between churches and copied in a scriptorium. According to Eusebius writing in the fourth century there were still books that were "Antilegomena", or spoken against. Again he is recounting an argument that has already taken place. These books included Jude, Hebrews, 2 and 3 John and Revelation. In fact, if you ask some of my Eastern Orthodox friends that frequent these pages if Revelation is ever used in the public worship of the Orthodox church. The reason why comes from this time period where the East took much longer to recognize the inspiration of the book of revelation.

So what is the point of all of this? If you notice the was never at anytime a dogmatic assertion defining what books belong in the New Testament canon. What you do have is the Festival Letter from Athanasius in about 397 that for the first time lists the entire New Testament and is the list we use today (although not the order). Rome did not officially declare what books were canonical until 1546. As far as tradition goes, Rome cannot point to one saying or utterance that Jesus ever said apart from the pages of the New Testament and therefore dependent on scripture not tradition.

As for those masses of uneducated folk, that was the reason for liturgy. Scripture from the earliest days was part of the church's worship. From Justin Martyr writing about 150:
First Apology Chapter 67:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.

Where the Church in the west went off the rails was to insist that the language remain in Latin for centuries after it ceased to be a universal language. Compare with the East where the language of liturgy was always in the language of the people. It is this reason that the reformers also insisted on liturgy and that it be done in the language of the people.

If you are up to it, a really good resource (although a bit dry) is Bruce Metzger's "Canon of the New Testament". The points I bring up are handled in a much better and scholarly way by a man who's a lot smarter (I mean a whole lot) than I. You might be able to pick up a used copy for reasonable price since I know the Kindle version is pricey.

 

[Albion]

To distinguish what the authority is from the interpretation of that authority seems pointless to me because we have to ultimately interpret the scripture in order to make use of it.

That still doesn't change anything as concerns Sola Scriptura. Sure, someone has to interpret the Bible but the term Sola Scriptura does not imply anything when it comes to that issue. So, if someone wants to debate the best ways to interpret Scripture, go ahead. That however, is a different topic.

Regardless, the Protestant emphasis does not allow the individual captivated by their own reading of scripture to submit to other readings even if those readings were correct.

That's just nonsense. It is standard practice in Protestant churches to interpret Scripture using all the resources that your church would use--history, linguistics, etc. etc.

This is where the individual assumes a supremacy of authority that simply cannot exist within the context of Church since it justifies schism for the sake of adhering to the perceived interpretation of the word.

That's completely false. Who told you such a ridiculous thing?

 

[Albion]

Hang on not so fast. I actually believe opposite that view point. With out tradition, oral and liturgical, the words of the Bible would have never been produced the faith would have died out one or two generations after Jesus ascended.

That doesn't change anything, either. Just as the point that Catholics like to insert into these discussions does not--that the Church canonized the Bible. None of that changes the issue in the least.

Simply put (again), Sola Scriptura means that the Bible (which we all accept as divine revelation) is the ultimate, the definitive guide to doctrine. Not tradition or the magic eight ball or tea leaves or papal decrees or something else...but the Bible. That's it.

How we got the Bible we all accept or what research goes into properly understanding the idioms found in it or the customs of the peoples described in it, or who is reading it...none of that is part of the meaning of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Vivat Christus Rex]

I appreciate your candor because this is what the thread all about. First, this position seems like the standard Catholic Answers reply when challenged on the Roman elevation of tradition over scripture. First, this is an outright falsehood. The church merely recognized that certain books were said to be inspired (greek theopneustos) or "God Breathed". This process occurred over a period of time but for the most part 22 of the 27 books were never really in doubt. Of the books for consideration were the 27 books we have in the New Testament and a few other texts that didn't make it such as the "Shepard of Hermas", the "Didache", etc. The New Testament was largely in place by the second century although it would not exist for the most part in once place. That would take the ending of the persecution before the church could finally collate and bind them into a codex. The books existed on scrolls of papyrus and vellum that were exchanged between churches and copied in a scriptorium. According to Eusebius writing in the fourth century there were still books that were "Antilegomena", or spoken against. Again he is recounting an argument that has already taken place. These books included Jude, Hebrews, 2 and 3 John and Revelation. In fact, if you ask some of my Eastern Orthodox friends that frequent these pages if Revelation is ever used in the public worship of the Orthodox church. The reason why comes from this time period where the East took much longer to recognize the inspiration of the book of revelation.

So what is the point of all of this? If you notice the was never at anytime a dogmatic assertion defining what books belong in the New Testament canon. What you do have is the Festival Letter from Athanasius in about 397 that for the first time lists the entire New Testament and is the list we use today (although not the order). Rome did not officially declare what books were canonical until 1546. As far as tradition goes, Rome cannot point to one saying or utterance that Jesus ever said apart from the pages of the New Testament and therefore dependent on scripture not tradition.

As for those masses of uneducated folk, that was the reason for liturgy. Scripture from the earliest days was part of the church's worship. From Justin Martyr writing about 150:
First Apology Chapter 67:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.

Where the Church in the west went off the rails was to insist that the language remain in Latin for centuries after it ceased to be a universal language. Compare with the East where the language of liturgy was always in the language of the people. It is this reason that the reformers also insisted on liturgy and that it be done in the language of the people.

If you are up to it, a really good resource (although a bit dry) is Bruce Metzger's "Canon of the New Testament". The points I bring up are handled in a much better and scholarly way by a man who's a lot smarter (I mean a whole lot) than I. You might be able to pick up a used copy for reasonable price since I know the Kindle version is pricey.

Wow that is alot of good info. I will have to see if i can find that book. As for latin I believe you are wrong I see Hebrew as the language of the first covenant and latin as the language of the new covenant. I believe it is unifying not dividing but In the last many years people no longer care to learn Gods language as was once done.

 

[Vivat Christus Rex]

That doesn't change anything, either. Just as the point that Catholics like to insert into these discussions does not--that the Church canonized the Bible. None of that changes the issue in the least.

Simply put (again), Sola Scriptura means that the Bible (which we all accept as divine revelation) is the ultimate, the definitive guide to doctrine. Not tradition or the magic eight ball or tea leaves or papal decrees or something else...but the Bible. That's it.

How we got the Bible we all accept or what research goes into properly understanding the idioms found in it or the customs of the peoples described in it, or who is reading it...none of that is part of the meaning of Sola Scriptura.

Ok I see your point but if the Bible is the complete and final authority on doctrine then why do so many protestant sects believe so many varied things that is in their minds dogmatic and everyone else is wrong? I believe yes the Bible is the complete word of God

 

[Vivat Christus Rex]

Sorry hit the post button accedently... But the church is a teaching church and if dogma can be disseminated directly from the Bible why are not all churches the same. No I believe tradition and how the first few century christians lived their faith is the tradition we should strive to follow and not invent our own understandings

 

[Albion]

Ok I see your point but if the Bible is the complete and final authority on doctrine then why do so many protestant sects believe so many varied things that is in their minds dogmatic and everyone else is wrong? I believe yes the Bible is the complete word of God

Well, we could also point out that the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches, neither of which adheres to Sola Scriptura, disagree with each other on a number of very important doctrines and on the meaning of many Bible passages.

So the answer is, I think, that this is a 'problem' (if that is the correct way of looking at the matter) that is universal among humans.

The Bible is inspired by God, yes, but recorded in the language of mortals, so that is going to open the door to some misunderstandings, just as there are differences of opinion among Christians concerning the meaning of the declarations made by Popes, Councils and, also, how to define or identify Tradition. In short, every other way of determining doctrine.

 

[Vivat Christus Rex]

I honestly and not that learned on the orthodox churches but as I remember they broke away from the Roman church in the 1000s right? That is when the orthodox denied the pope I think which makes them basicly the first protestants I don't know the whole history but denying the chair of peter causes all sorts of doctrinal errors from what I have seen of the reformation and it's consequences.

 

[Albion]

I honestly and not that learned on the orthodox churches but as I remember they broke away from the Roman church in the 1000s right?

Depends on whom you are taking with. The Orthodox maintain that the Roman Church broke away from them. It's hard to say who is responsible, but the issues that led to the break in 1054 concerned changes made by Rome, without the East's agreement, in the years leading up to that point in time.

That is when the orthodox denied the pope I think which makes them basicly the first protestants I don't know the whole history but denying the chair of peter causes all sorts of doctrinal errors from what I have seen of the reformation and it's consequences.

It's interesting to have you put it that way. The Eastern bishops have commented that the Pope became the first Protestant by breaking up the unity which had existed during the ancient church and the era of the Ecumenical Councils.

Anyway, there's really not much similarity between the Great Schism of 1054 and the Reformation except that these two represent the historic 1-2 punch against the unity of Christendom. There were other splits, of course, but not of the magnitude of these two.

 

[Vivat Christus Rex]

Depends on whom you are taking with. The Orthodox maintain that the Roman Church broke away from them. It's hard to say who is responsible, but the issues that led to the break in 1054 concerned changes made by Rome, without the East's agreement, in the years leading up to that point in time.



It's interesting to have you put it that way. The Eastern bishops have commented that the Pope became the first Protestant by breaking up the unity which had existed during the ancient church and the era of the Ecumenical Councils.

Anyway, there's really not much similarity between the Great Schism of 1054 and the Reformation except that these two represent the historic 1-2 punch against the unity of Christendom. There were other splits, of course, but not of the magnitude of these two.

Ok you say the Catholics broke away from you but do you still follow the chair of peter? Do you hold that the pope has ultimate authority on some matters. This current pope is not to be taken into account let's say john paul 2 was still pontiff

 

[Albion]

Ok you say the Catholics broke away from you but do you still follow the chair of peter?

I was replying to the comment that the Orthodox broke away from Rome and I noted that the Orthodox say that Rome broke from them instead. That was just an historic footnote I thought might be of interest to you. I'm not an Eastern Orthodox Christian myself.

 

[Vivat Christus Rex]

Oh sorry I just don't know that much about the divide between them. I assumed by ur answers you did. But either way if you can't accept the keys that Jesus gave to Peter then you can't accept tradition that's how I see in. Jesus founded one church and said in scripture
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Writings letters but not a book I know it's semantics but I don't like making my own interpretation at the time it was not considered scripture and until it was fully approved I don't believe it could be fully accepted. So tradition and teaching of apostles not the Bible alone.

 

[Albion]

Oh sorry I just don't know that much about the divide between them. I assumed by ur answers you did. But either way if you can't accept the keys that Jesus gave to Peter then you can't accept tradition that's how I see in.

Yes, that's what your particular denomination teaches its members, but there was no concept of a Papacy in the history of Christianity until about 300 years after the founding of the Christian church. And it was hundreds of years before any bishop of Rome claimed that the Bible verse you are referring to was to be interpreted as meaning that he was the Pope in charge of the universal church.

Over time, the bishops of Rome gradually claimed and asserted more and more authority until it caused a rupture with the older Christian churches in the East. That's what we call the Great Schism. After the break, the Western church tended to use the name Catholic and the Eastern ones the term Orthodox.

Jesus founded one church

That's true, and we call it the Christian church. Competing denominations came later.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15

That doesn't mean that anyone can make up doctrines and claim that the word "traditions" in that verse refers to them!

But go ahead, and identify some of these traditions that are not in the Bible but which we are to hold fast to, if you believe otherwise. I'd be interested to know which ones you think belong on such a list.

Writings letters but not a book I know it's semantics but I don't like making my own interpretation at the time it was not considered scripture and until it was fully approved I don't believe it could be fully accepted. So tradition and teaching of apostles not the Bible alone.

Well, there is no reason to think that whatever the Apostles taught is contrary or in addition to what he have in the Bible, is there?

 

[W2L]

Bible alone can make us wise.

Matthew 7:24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”

28 And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, 29 for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Wow that is alot of good info. I will have to see if i can find that book. As for latin I believe you are wrong I see Hebrew as the language of the first covenant and latin as the language of the new covenant. I believe it is unifying not dividing but In the last many years people no longer care to learn Gods language as was once done.

Apparently you believe that St. Jerome authored the new covenant as it was he who translated it from its original Greek into Latin. Your post reminds me of some of our KJV-only friends who insist on reading God's word in the original inspired language - seventeenth-century English.