Doesn't anyone study JUST the Bible?

[Isaiah J]

Where are all the people who study just the Bible?

*Full-Preterism v. Partial-Preterism...
*Amillennialism...
*Post-Trib v. Pre-Trib....
*Calvinism v. Arminianism...
*God knows how many other categories there are that I can't even come up with.

You can't know what these terms mean without studying religion. Sure, you might have an idea, but none of these terms are mentioned in the Bible. They're categories of theological differences. A person could study the Bible for a lifetime, and would obviously have opinions on these topics, but wouldn't ever be able to engage in a conversation about them because he would have no clue what the other person was talking about.

Is it a convenience thing? Does this invalidate Sola Scriptura?

 

[Cappadocious]

Do you have a proposed solution that you are trying to lead us towards? If so, what is it?

 

[Isaiah J]

No solution; I'm asking questions. Sorry, thought that was clear.

1. Why do these categorical "titles" exist? Seems it must be out of convenience, but then it isn't convenient at all. It's incredibly inconvenient, as it serves only to pull one's attention away from the Bible, and toward researching centuries of endless debate just to figure out what each side actually believes and argues against. Isn't it easier to say, "Here's what I believe the Bible teaches on... [fill in the blank]."

2. Is it really important for me to study these topics just to understand what the debate is actually about? For instance, I have absolutely no clue whatsoever what Full-Preterism versus Partial-Preterism refers to. Should I be researching these, or just reading my Bible?

3. If it is important to study the topics themselves, then Sola Scriptura is pretty much a falacy. Correct?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Where are all the people who study just the Bible?

*Full-Preterism v. Partial-Preterism...
*Amillennialism...
*Post-Trib v. Pre-Trib....
*Calvinism v. Arminianism...
*God knows how many other categories there are that I can't even come up with.

You can't know what these terms mean without studying religion. Sure, you might have an idea, but none of these terms are mentioned in the Bible. They're categories of theological differences. A person could study the Bible for a lifetime, and would obviously have opinions on these topics, but wouldn't ever be able to engage in a conversation about them because he would have no clue what the other person was talking about.

Is it a convenience thing? Does this invalidate Sola Scriptura?

False dichotomies are a failing of a western education, if it is not this .. then it must be this . but this is not necessarily so. The first question "Does anyone JUST study the Bible?" and I would add a second question "How far does one take the transformation of the mind Described in Romans chapter 12?" and a third question "When studying the bible, does one apply the bible to the premise of their thinking?"

 

[fhansen]

The beliefs and categorizations arose as a result of bible study. They are creeds, so to speak, summarizations of beliefs, a natural enough undertaking for rational beings such as man.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Then one must ask where the bible came from, and continue in seeking God that way, towards a fullness of knowledge.

 

[Albion]

Where are all the people who study just the Bible?

*Full-Preterism v. Partial-Preterism...
*Amillennialism...
*Post-Trib v. Pre-Trib....
*Calvinism v. Arminianism...
*God knows how many other categories there are that I can't even come up with.

You can't know what these terms mean without studying religion. Sure, you might have an idea, but none of these terms are mentioned in the Bible. They're categories of theological differences. A person could study the Bible for a lifetime, and would obviously have opinions on these topics, but wouldn't ever be able to engage in a conversation about them because he would have no clue what the other person was talking about.

Is it a convenience thing? Does this invalidate Sola Scriptura?

It's not about Sola Scriptura. That's been explained numerous times around here, but it never seems to stick. Why that is the case, is hard to say. It varies with the person.

In this case, it looks like Bible Alone is being seen to mean STUDY the Bible Alone, when the actual meaning of the term is DOCTRINE IS TO BE DETERMINED by the Bible Alone.

 

[Optimax]

Such terms, as I see it, are used by many to "identify" in one's own imagination "where a person is at religiously".

Thereby enabling the person, in their own imagination, the elite position of "categorizing" that person.

Thus enabling them, in their own imagination, to completely know and understand what another person believes about any and every subject.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Where are all the people who study just the Bible?

*Full-Preterism v. Partial-Preterism...
*Amillennialism...
*Post-Trib v. Pre-Trib....
*Calvinism v. Arminianism...
*God knows how many other categories there are that I can't even come up with.

You can't know what these terms mean without studying religion. Sure, you might have an idea, but none of these terms are mentioned in the Bible. They're categories of theological differences. A person could study the Bible for a lifetime, and would obviously have opinions on these topics, but wouldn't ever be able to engage in a conversation about them because he would have no clue what the other person was talking about.

Is it a convenience thing? Does this invalidate Sola Scriptura?

Using just the Bible how would you come to the conclusion one should only study the Bible? Using just the Bible how would you know there should be a Bible at all? Using just the Bible, can you point out which books should be in the Bible, that is, why do you accept the Gospel of Mark but not the Gospel of Thomas? Why isn't the book of Jubilees in your Bible? Why do you have Paul's letter to the Colossians but not Paul's letter to the Laodiceans? Answer those questions using only the Bible.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Cappadocious]

Studying just the Bible is theoretically impossible.

 

[Lukamu]

Where are all the people who study just the Bible?

*Full-Preterism v. Partial-Preterism...
*Amillennialism...
*Post-Trib v. Pre-Trib....
*Calvinism v. Arminianism...
*God knows how many other categories there are that I can't even come up with.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1431698694306-1'); });
You can't know what these terms mean without studying religion.

It's true that this vocabulary isn't in the Bible, but you can still know what they mean... in a way. For example, you could read scripture about "those who are predestined" and come to the conclusion that some people were predestined to be Christians and other people were not (Calvinism). Or you could contemplate the idea of an omniscient God and come to the conclusion that God could know all possibilities of future events, not just the ones that are going to exist (Arminianism). In other words, you can come to these conclusions by studying the Bible alone, but a lot of people learn about these things by hearing about them from others first, and then hopefully they will search the scriptures regarding these ideas. Is it better to come the the conclusion first by studying the Bible, or is it better to hear it first and then search the Bible regarding what you heard?

Using just the Bible how would you come to the conclusion one should only study the Bible? Using just the Bible how would you know there should be a Bible at all? Using just the Bible, can you point out which books should be in the Bible, that is, why do you accept the Gospel of Mark but not the Gospel of Thomas? Why isn't the book of Jubilees in your Bible? Why do you have Paul's letter to the Colossians but not Paul's letter to the Laodiceans? Answer those questions using only the Bible.

These questions belong in the same category as "What's the best way to grow carrots?" and "How do I teach my dog to fetch?" or "Why is the sky blue?" There are A LOT of questions that the Bible doesn't answer. But as far as the human spirit is concerned, the Bible is ALL that is necessary to understand our condition and the solution. Why do I need to read the Gospel of Thomas / Letter to the Laodiceans? Do you think it will help me to become a "better" Christian? Or are we not saved through faith by grace alone? What other books do you think that we need to study?

Studying just the Bible is theoretically impossible.

In what way? I studied just the Bible for the first 20 years of my life - disproving that it's theoretically impossible. Or do you mean that studying the Bible requires us to also study our own thoughts, experiences, and the world around us?

The Bible is sufficient.

 

[Cappadocious]

I mean there is no way to read or study the bible without interpreting it.

 

[Tangible]

 

[SinnerInTheHands]

Where are all the people who study just the Bible?

*Full-Preterism v. Partial-Preterism...
*Amillennialism...
*Post-Trib v. Pre-Trib....
*Calvinism v. Arminianism...

I study just the Bible, or at least I try to.

 

[GillDouglas]

Where are all the people who study just the Bible?

*Full-Preterism v. Partial-Preterism...
*Amillennialism...
*Post-Trib v. Pre-Trib....
*Calvinism v. Arminianism...
*God knows how many other categories there are that I can't even come up with.

You can't know what these terms mean without studying religion. Sure, you might have an idea, but none of these terms are mentioned in the Bible. They're categories of theological differences. A person could study the Bible for a lifetime, and would obviously have opinions on these topics, but wouldn't ever be able to engage in a conversation about them because he would have no clue what the other person was talking about.

Is it a convenience thing? Does this invalidate Sola Scriptura?

Have you ever listened to a sermon that presented a piece of scripture in such a way that made complete sense, and applicable to you? I know I have. In this fashion we've understood a message based on another man's interpretation and not directly from studying ourselves. I think we've all done this either in church, or even reading through the creeds of learned men who came before us.

 

[Gnarwhal]

1. Why do these categorical "titles" exist? Seems it must be out of convenience, but then it isn't convenient at all. It's incredibly inconvenient, as it serves only to pull one's attention away from the Bible, and toward researching centuries of endless debate just to figure out what each side actually believes and argues against. Isn't it easier to say, "Here's what I believe the Bible teaches on... [fill in the blank]."

The categories exist because people believe those concepts whether they know the titles or not. They were categorized, and painstakingly fleshed out to determine what is in line with the historic and orthodox faith of the Church, vis-à-vis, Christ's teachings.

There's a seminary professor at Talbot Theological Seminary who said, "There are no new heresies, just old ones dressed up in space suits". People are constantly unpacking what they think is a fresh revelation, but whether it's orthodox or not, it's generally not new. If it's heterodox/heretical, then dollars to doughnuts, it was struck down a millennia ago.

2. Is it really important for me to study these topics just to understand what the debate is actually about? For instance, I have absolutely no clue whatsoever what Full-Preterism versus Partial-Preterism refers to. Should I be researching these, or just reading my Bible?

Yes.

I'm in favor of understanding. In the opening chapter of Philippians, St. Paul commends the them for their love, but he also says "And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight" (1v9). It's crucial to exercise our cognitive faculties, but more than that, it's our duty to assure that we comprehend the faith properly so that we might not deviate from it.

3. If it is important to study the topics themselves, then Sola Scriptura is pretty much a falacy. Correct?

Not necessarily. For those who adhere to Sola Scriptura, the scriptures are held as the rule of faith, the barometer by which everything else is measured. It doesn't mean you're obliged to only ever read the bible.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

There are people who have no idea what the word sanctified means but are viewed as such by God so I think wordage has no meaning beyond discussing it with others. Faith is of the heart and the heart has a language of it's own.
Also I think it's advantages to study the bible on it's own very thoroughly before becoming associated with preconceived ideas so as to be better able to have a heartfelt knowledge of what is true and what is not.
Not any one denomination holds all the truth w/o error. Once someone has studied the bible only and reached an understanding thru word studies, character studies etc ... then compared them to other's understanding of these things ( much like Paul did ) then a more complete understanding is available that is not carte blanche given to someone from a certain denomination that they are supposed to edify themselves with w/o prior study themselves.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Where are all the people who study just the Bible?

*Full-Preterism v. Partial-Preterism...
*Amillennialism...
*Post-Trib v. Pre-Trib....
*Calvinism v. Arminianism...
*God knows how many other categories there are that I can't even come up with.

You can't know what these terms mean without studying religion. Sure, you might have an idea, but none of these terms are mentioned in the Bible. They're categories of theological differences. A person could study the Bible for a lifetime, and would obviously have opinions on these topics, but wouldn't ever be able to engage in a conversation about them because he would have no clue what the other person was talking about.

Is it a convenience thing? Does this invalidate Sola Scriptura?

There is no crime in reading the thoughts of the other great Christian theologians. I consider it bizarre that people never bother to read their work. It seems arrogant to me, as if they are somehow more inspired by the Holy Spirit than those before them. If you can come up with something good for all of us, then more power to you. Don't forget that all of these theologians studied the bible themselves.

 

[Aino]

I think the Bible doesn't support learning from the Bible alone. Or why would Paul have preached if everyone could have just read the Bible? And why would Paul and the other apostles have started congregations everywhere they went? If the Bible alone were sufficient for everyone in that sense then we wouldn't need a church to grow up in our faith. we wouldn't need pastors to share their thoughts or missionaries to preach. We wouldn't read the Bible together and discuss verses. We could just shut up, read the Bible, worship in our minds and make sure everyone has a Bible they can read and silently worship too.

But if we've read the Bible we know that the word of God is not only meant to be studied alone! We're supposed to read the Bible together and worship together and to share the gospel with christians and unbelievers alike. Now maybe you think that's a different thing but it's not! Every time we hear a sermon or say a creed or read a book or discuss about our faith or whatever, that's always an interpretation of the Bible. Sola scriptura means that the basis of our doctrine is the Bible and not that our faith would have to be limited to only reading the Bible.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Doesn't anyone study JUST the Bible?

Me......................

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/1-corin-4-6-no-above-what-is-written.7367166/
1 Corin 4:6 No above what is written

I was studying on this verse along with the greek texts and though there is a variance in one of the greek texts [W-H], I was wondering how others view this verse.

The way this is worded, it appears to say do not go beyond "what is written".

Is Paul talking about His letters, or the Gospels and Old Testament or the whole Bible. Thoughts?

1 corin 4:6
I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

Textus Rec.) 1 Corinthians 4:6 tauta de adelfoi meteschmatisa eiV emauton kai *apollw di umaV
ina en hmin maqhte to mh uper *o gegraptai *fronein* ina mh eiV uper tou enoV fusiousqe kata tou eterou