Do you believe the Bible alone?

[elliott95]

Do you believe the Bible alone, or the church founded by Jesus, mt 16:18 and a teaching authority taught by Jesus? Mt 28 great commission to the Church the Apostles!

I see the Bible as the normative norm for the Church.
The Bible is the anchor for all teachings of all Christian churches.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

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.

Given the different approaches to the bible by both Protestantism (reluctance to accept authority) and traditional Christianity (affirmation of authority past and present) there does seem to be some direct impact that the doctrine itself plays, particularly when arguing. I don't think there is a single Orthodox who would suggest we should follow men if we know the bible says something else, rather we sincerely doubt Protestant interpretations which read into Orthodox and Catholic accretions to the faith which must be stripped.

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.

I've never denied Protestants can use such as help though they don't tend to, preferring instead modern critical methods of biblical interpretation and commentary which did not inform the Church before these methods. The difference is that in Protestantism, the individual cannot be expected to submit themselves to anyone but themselves when reading the bible. I believe Christianity since Christ and before the reformation allows for both the authority of other people and individuals to correct a mass of authorities.

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

It's not that someone has told me this, but it is my conclusion regarding where Sola Scriptura leads and I think this is seen in how Protestant Churches themselves justify their existence and organise their ranks. Belonging to a community is not necessary in Protestantism, it cannot be since that would jeapordize justification by faith and would put into question the position of scripture to offer salvation to the individual. Scripture alone is all sufficient for learning about salvation correct? Church then is a secondary helper following the steps of the book, not integral to following the book itself. Communion is ultimately secondary within Protestantism which is why it tolerates the disastrous disunion between Churches and no one Protestant Church can insist they are the one true Church on earth (unlike EO, RCC or OO for instance). Schism is not a serious issue within Protestantism since the true Church of God can never be torn or rendered apart but consists of all the faithful in all denominations whom God has chosen only, not a body of believers sharing the same Eucharist.

If I am false on this, would you be able to tell a person who has read his bible, agrees with no Church that he could not start his own?

 

[Almost there]

Do you take your own apprehension of the bible as seriously as you do extra biblical works?

Depends on the source. I'm a big fan of C. S. Lewis. But I consider all extra-biblical works to be the words of men like me, and often they disagree 180 degrees, which is rather interesting.

 

[Albion]

Given the different approaches to the bible by both Protestantism (reluctance to accept authority) and traditional Christianity (affirmation of authority past and present) there does seem to be some direct impact that the doctrine itself plays, particularly when arguing.

With apologies, what you've said here looks to me just like denominational sloganeering or, if not that, the usual kind of misrepresentation of one branch of Christianity against the others.

Although commonly done, it doesn't help discussions like this one. Simply saying something like "Protestantism (reluctance to accept authority)..." is patently ridiculous, particularly when Christians who are hostile to Protestantism like also to accuse Protestants of being "Bible belters" or "Bible thumpers" or even "Bible worshippers!" If the Bible isn't an authority for Christians, I don't know what else ought to take it place.

If I am false on this, would you be able to tell a person who has read his bible, agrees with no Church that he could not start his own?

He could start his own Catholic or Orthodox church, too, if he wished. So that isn't much of a point. And don't think that there are not hundreds of non-canonical
"Orthodox" or "Catholic" church bodies.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

With apologies, what you've said here looks to me just like denominational sloganeering or, if not that, the usual kind of misrepresentation of one branch of Christianity against the others.

Although commonly done, it doesn't help discussions like this one. Simply saying something like "Protestantism (reluctance to accept authority)..." is patently ridiculous, particularly when Christians who are hostile to Protestantism like also to accuse Protestants of being "Bible belters" or "Bible thumpers" or even "Bible worshippers!" If the Bible isn't an authority for Christians, I don't know what else ought to take it place.

One of the central cry of the reformers was the willingness to abandon past tradition utterly if it contradicted the bible. Their loyalty was first to their perception of the bible before any other tradition or institution. I do not think it a slander to suggest that is a prominent strain that still exists within most of Protestantism today. I have not accused Protestants here of being any of those things, I have only listed those differences which seem to divide the pre-reformation Churches from the Protestant Church.

He could start his own Catholic or Orthodox church, too, if he wished. So that isn't much of a point. And don't think that there are not hundreds of non-canonical
"Orthodox" or "Catholic" church bodies.

I suppose he could try to start his own Orthodox Church, the only problem is that it wouldn't be recognised by any of the Orthodox Churches if he didn't do it properly. That is this individual could build a building with all the bells and whistles, wear the right looking robes and chant the liturgy perfectly but since he was not ordained by a Bishop, he could not be considered in the proper sense an "Orthodox Church."

Now if he were to do so as a Lutheran, would that Church be legitimate? Since approval of certain authorities within Lutheranism is not necessary and only the correct teaching and distribution of the Eucharist is necessary I don't see how the Lutheran could argue that church would be illegitimate. It has all the necessary marks of a Church. Same goes with Baptist, Presbyterianism and others. Anglicanism might prove the exception since they still seem to adhere to an idea of Apostolic succession but that is only within the context of the Anglican Church. An Anglican could not question the legitimacy of a Non Anglican Church which adheres to certain basic truths of the reformation and yet might contradict the Anglicans on other points. Hence schism is not so much a problem in Protestantism, because the essence of the Church is not seen in local bodies or individual local bodies recognising each other and worshipping together in the same Eucharist. The essence of the Church in Protestantism is God's knowledge of who his elect are, therefore if a visible aspects of the church appear divided, this does not impact the real unity of the invisible Church in Christ.

 

[Albion]

One of the central cry of the reformers was the willingness to abandon past tradition utterly if it contradicted the bible.

For what it's worth, I quite disagree with that. Their opposition to "Tradition" was very much focused and limited.

I suppose he could try to start his own Orthodox Church, the only problem is that it wouldn't be recognised by any of the Orthodox Churches if he didn't do it properly. That is this individual could build a building with all the bells and whistles, wear the right looking robes and chant the liturgy perfectly but since he was not ordained by a Bishop, he could not be considered in the proper sense an "Orthodox Church."

Oh, but there are plenty who are able to find a bishop to consecrate them. Don't doubt that, 'cause it's been done many times.

 

[bbbbbbb]

For what it's worth, I quite disagree with that. Their opposition to "Tradition" was very much focused and limited.

Oh, but there are plenty who are able to find a bishop to consecrate them. Don't doubt that, 'cause it's been done many times.

Yes, it has been done many times, which has definitely caused the tradition of Apostolic Succession to lose much of its appeal.

 

[Albion]

Yes, it has been done many times, which has definitely caused the tradition of Apostolic Succession to lose much of its appeal.

I'd be interested in knowing more about why you'd say that. From all that I can tell, the bishops of tiny jurisdictions that most people pay no attention to haven't done much of anything to change the public perception of Apostolic Succession. However, the extension of it to some of the leading denominations such the Ev. Lutheran Church in America, which had not had bishops in Apostolic Succession until recently, has had the opposite effect.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'd be interested in knowing more about why you'd say that. From all that I can tell, the bishops of tiny jurisdictions that most people pay no attention to haven't done much of anything to change the public perception of Apostolic Succession. However, the extension of it to some of the leading denominations such the Ev. Lutheran Church in America, which had not had bishops in Apostolic Succession until recently, has had the opposite effect.

The reason I say it is because Apostolic Succession is not one of the top ten topics our Catholic friends choose to employ to shoot down Protestants in general. I will admit, of course, that they love to use it against Anglicans such as yourself. I suspect that the reason for this is that Anglicans seem to be sensitive and vulnerable to their charges whereas those of us who lay no interest or claim to Apostolic Succession can easily shrug it off.

I suspect that Catholics realize, as you have posted, that it is not that difficult today to find a bishop who has been properly ordained in a denomination with Apostolic succession who has parted ways and continues to ordain priests, making a solid claim that Apostolic Succession is continuing through him. This is true in the Anglican communion and in the Roman Catholic Church. The net result is that there is no monopoly on Apostolic Succession such that the supply exceeds the demand.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

For what it's worth, I quite disagree with that. Their opposition to "Tradition" was very much focused and limited.


Oh, but there are plenty who are able to find a bishop to consecrate them. Don't doubt that, 'cause it's been done many times.

I am only aware of one examples of consecration on behalf of the Orthodox to someone non-Orthodox and that being the case of John Wesley, though there is debate as to whether the so called Bishop was legitimately who he claimed to be and even if he were that would not make the ordination legitimate.

Invalid ordinations do not disprove the notion of Apostolic succession, which is more than the ordination of the Bishop, Priest or Deacon. That ordination is a symbol of the communities faith, that it is the same community receiving the same faith from one generation to the next, sharing the same Eucharist. This does nothing to refute what I have said concerning the nature of schism in Protestantism, that the freedom which sola scriptura allows implies that schism is not as bad as the early Church or non-protestant Christians make it out to be.

 

[Anguspure]

How would they know. How would Jones know that he wasn’t?

Basic philosophy of God should tell everyone the nature of God. But us dummies don't get it so God reveals it. Then He trys to talk to us through deaf ears. Then He encounters the truth, the truth is our own egos win the day over His will.

 

[Anguspure]

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

Without the Spirit scripture would not be available. Tradition is powerless mumbo jumbo without the Spirit of God

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Without the Spirit scripture would not be available. Tradition is powerless mumbo jumbo without the Spirit of God

Yep, without the Holy Spirit, none of this would be possible.

 

[Albion]

The reason I say it is because Apostolic Succession is not one of the top ten topics our Catholic friends choose to employ to shoot down Protestants in general.

That's true, although it would seem like a "natural," wouldn't it?

I will admit, of course, that they love to use it against Anglicans such as yourself. I suspect that the reason for this is that Anglicans seem to be sensitive and vulnerable to their charges whereas those of us who lay no interest or claim to Apostolic Succession can easily shrug it off.

Right.

I suspect that Catholics realize, as you have posted, that it is not that difficult today to find a bishop who has been properly ordained in a denomination with Apostolic succession who has parted ways and continues to ordain priests, making a solid claim that Apostolic Succession is continuing through him. This is true in the Anglican communion and in the Roman Catholic Church. The net result is that there is no monopoly on Apostolic Succession such that the supply exceeds the demand.

Right again, although they do have ways to manipulate that point as, for example, by adding something to Apostolic Succession such as "You must be in communion with the Holy See or else all of that is negated--other than for the several churches for which the RCC has made an exception, that is."

 

[Albion]

I am only aware of one examples of consecration on behalf of the Orthodox to someone non-Orthodox and that being the case of John Wesley,

No, I was speaking of the scads of non-canonical Eastern Orthodox churches.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No, I was speaking of the scads of non-canonical Eastern Orthodox churches.

Such as?

 

[Basil the Great]

I like the Anglican theme that says that all that is necessary for salvation is contained in the Scriptures. However, I cannot say that I believe the Bible alone. Do I believe Paul's statement about slaves needing to be obedient to their masters? Do I believe Paul's admonition about women covering their heads lest they shame themselves? Do I believe Paul's command that wives should be submissive to their husbands? (God forbid they do so in abusive relationships! We have had too much of that through the centuries.) Do I believe that Jesus' command to love our enemies means that we should never defend ourselves or loved ones? (And that last statement comes from one who has pacifistic tendencies, but is still not a complete pacifist.)

We have tradition to help us interpret the Bible, but even more important than tradition is human reason. God gave us all the ability to reason. While some may not admit it, virtually no one accepts the Bible alone. We all must interpret the Bible and we use human reason and tradition to do so.

 

[Albion]

I like the Anglican theme that says that all that is necessary for salvation is contained in the Scriptures. However, I cannot say that I believe the Bible alone.

Something about this escapes me. The idea called "Bible Alone" doesn't conflict with the idea that all which is necessary for salvation is contained in the Scriptures. Are you saying that nothing should be required of the people that is not Biblical BUT that not everything that IS in the Bible is in that category? Some people towards the fundamentalist end of the spectrum do seem to feel that everything we think and do must accord with something found in the Bible, but of course we don't take that view.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Without the Spirit scripture would not be available. Tradition is powerless mumbo jumbo without the Spirit of God

Very true!

 

[Basil the Great]

Something about this escapes me. The idea called "Bible Alone" doesn't conflict with the idea that all which is necessary for salvation is contained in the Scriptures. Are you saying that nothing should be required of the people that is not Biblical BUT that not everything that IS in the Bible is in that category? Some people towards the fundamentalist end of the spectrum do seem to feel that everything we think and do must accord with something found in the Bible, but of course we don't take that view.

Yes, I thought about my post later and felt it could be misleading. I guess that the title of this thread throw me a little and I kind of felt that it was asking if I took all of the Bible literally. You are right, my friend, when you said that the title of this thread does not really conflict with the doctrine that all this is necessary for salvation is contained in the Scriptures.