Is the Bible not our one and only source?

[Hanging by a Thread]

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?)

 

[Albion]

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.

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 And simply reading it won't make you an expert in the meaning of ancient languages, idioms, historical references, and all of that which is found on the pages of the Bible, simply by reading an English language translation.

 

[tdidymas]

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?)

I agree to an extent, so I should qualify it:

It takes much more than just reading the Bible. I was a Christian, reading and studying the Bible, and memorizing some of it for 20 years, taking advice from church leadership, until the gospel really came together for me in my understanding of the nature of my relationship with God. Since then (for more than 20 years), my knowledge and understanding of scripture has caused me to question many traditional ideas and cultural practices, and still causes me to question assertions from theologians. My point is that familiarity with scripture is the thing that qualifies us to properly assess religious ideas.

It also takes more than familiarity with scripture, since (worst case) the devil is very familiar with it. I say that our ability to properly evaluate what comes out of someone's mouth or what we observe them do needs an ongoing and amicable relationship with God and His people. More than a few times we read "be filled with the Spirit," "endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," "you have an anointing," and such statements like that. IOW, there is also a spiritual element of being led by the Holy Spirit, which requires a vital relationship with God.

So then, I do respect my pastor and listen carefully to what he says, but I recognize that he is a fallible human being, and have heard him make mistakes. Doctors and lawyers are also fallible and make mistakes. The older I became, the more I realized that my health (spiritual, physical, and financial) are my responsibility, and mine alone. When we stand before God, we will stand alone, and only Christ will defend us, not anyone else.

But not only do fallible people make mistakes, they can also lie. We might be swindled by an auto mechanic, and we just go elsewhere. But what can we do if we are deceived by a pastor or priest who really doesn't know what he is talking about? Our eternal welfare is very important, and I'll not take the risk of being ignorant about it.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

The Apostles spent three years learning directly from Christ and they messed things up even after that. Peter denied Christ three times on the night He was betrayed by Judas and most of the others fled and Judas killed himself.

We have thousands of pages of material written over the centuries trying to answer questions such as "Is God a Trinity?", "Is Jesus God?", "Did God die on the cross", "What is the Eucharist?", "Why do bad things happen to good people?", and the list goes on. There is far more out there that Scripture may not answer clearly.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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?)

We have scholars and seminary colleges who have studied the scriptures extensively for decades who can’t agree on doctrines. A simple reading of the scriptures will not always reveal its sound doctrines and I guarantee you that during a second read thru you will learn something new that you didn’t realize the first time.

 

[mlepfitjw]

Is the Bible not our one and only source?

Hello HBAT, yes it is our only source for understanding the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and who God is.

It is also allows understanding of many other things that are found with-in scripture (Mainly speaking on the new testament / of course the Old Testament is useful as well for contextual purposes and history).

There is also history (most likely) that we can go look at Romans and how it was, maybe Galilee back in those days (When Christ was walking around), though I have never personally went to go and look them up.

A teacher taught me a lot, and to mindful of historical things going on, and to understand that the bible was written for a group of people long ago, but the bible is now a gift that we can go and look back into as a reference to finding out Truth.

(The primary way of life is to live by the spirit and to be close to God, and to love others with mercy, forgiveness, kindness, pray for our enemies, pray for all people no matter who they are, what they have done, even if others have doctrinal differences through out what they have learned from churches, or other people.)

Thank God we have the bible what a wonderful gift!

How awesome it is even more we have heard the story about the Lord Jesus Christ, and that God desires and wants to have a relationship with all people. If they so choose to open up their hearts and let the light of Christ Jesus in.

Be blessed.

 

[BobRyan]

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?)

The Bible is the "standard" the "ruler" the "acid test" for any doctrine, practice, teaching

"they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things (spoken by Paul) were SO" Acts 17:11.

Jesus was trained as a carpenter - no Bible text in the OT predicted that but it would have been part of the gospel story and would not have been considered to be in contradiction to scripture.

The prophet Agabus warns about a drought in the NT and warns Paul about his upcoming prison time if he goes to Jerusalem. Neither of Ababus' prophecies/predictions are found in the OT text - but "would not have been considered to be in contradiction to scripture"

1 Cor 12 and 1 Cor 14:1-2 points to prophecy as an ongoing gift for the church as does Eph 4.

John tells us about the 1000 year millennium in Rev 20 and no other Bible writer mentions that length of time to follow the 2nd coming (where we have he "first resurrection" According to Rev 20) and being before the second resurrection. That too "would not have been considered to be in contradiction to scripture" by the NT readers.

Still - it is also true that none of that is an argument for not-testing all doctrine by the Bible.

 

[tdidymas]

One more thing I'd like to add. Interpretation of the Bible is not arbitrary, so we still need leaders to give us their opinions, from which we can evaluate how various people interpret scripture. Then, we still don't have to pick a certain interpretation and commit to it, because there will always be controversies we don't have absolute answers to, until that day "when all things are revealed."

When I say "not arbitrary," I'm talking about the many people who take scripture out of context and make it mean something it didn't originally mean. A new idea might pop into their mind while reading, and they jump to a conclusion that the idea is inspired of God, so they commit to that idea, and claim it's what the scripture means. This happens all the time, and is a very ancient problem.

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

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.

Thanks for the response, Albion.
I agree that you can't become an expert in medicine or law just by reading upon it. I think if I make a post too long people won't take the time to read the whole thing (which may be the case with this response-lol), so I edited out the fact that Doctors need experience and also have to stay up to date on advancements in the field. Which I think only adds to my point. There are no additions/advancements to the Bible. And while we may gain experience by practicing what we learn in the Bible, such experience cannot result in changes to the source (the Bible). Whereas a Doctor may, through experience, say "hey, I've found a better way to do this procedure" thus updating/advancing his source (medical education).
To your point about reading the Bible it took my joining this site to realize that there are so many variances in intrepretations. And frankly, I find that and the fact the Bible is over 2000 years old and has been translated several times throughout history to be a bit unsettling. But to me, all that anyone, including clergy can do with the Bible is simply read it and interpret it. Now your point may be that because of all of the ancient languages, idioms, historical references that only full time clergy would be able to find the time to fully absorb (or gain a deeper knowledge?) the Bible's intent. Which may be a valid point. I dunno, that's why I'm asking.
Thanks again, Albion.

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

I agree to an extent, so I should qualify it:

It takes much more than just reading the Bible. I was a Christian, reading and studying the Bible, and memorizing some of it for 20 years, taking advice from church leadership, until the gospel really came together for me in my understanding of the nature of my relationship with God. Since then (for more than 20 years), my knowledge and understanding of scripture has caused me to question many traditional ideas and cultural practices, and still causes me to question assertions from theologians. My point is that familiarity with scripture is the thing that qualifies us to properly assess religious ideas.

It also takes more than familiarity with scripture, since (worst case) the devil is very familiar with it. I say that our ability to properly evaluate what comes out of someone's mouth or what we observe them do needs an ongoing and amicable relationship with God and His people. More than a few times we read "be filled with the Spirit," "endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," "you have an anointing," and such statements like that. IOW, there is also a spiritual element of being led by the Holy Spirit, which requires a vital relationship with God.

So then, I do respect my pastor and listen carefully to what he says, but I recognize that he is a fallible human being, and have heard him make mistakes. Doctors and lawyers are also fallible and make mistakes. The older I became, the more I realized that my health (spiritual, physical, and financial) are my responsibility, and mine alone. When we stand before God, we will stand alone, and only Christ will defend us, not anyone else.

But not only do fallible people make mistakes, they can also lie. We might be swindled by an auto mechanic, and we just go elsewhere. But what can we do if we are deceived by a pastor or priest who really doesn't know what he is talking about? Our eternal welfare is very important, and I'll not take the risk of being ignorant about it.

Thanks for the response tdidymas.
Appears to me you get the gist of my post and pretty much agree with it. I suspect I'll hear alot about the Holy Spirit in the responses and that's a valid point. But do we know anything of the Holy Spirit without the Bible?

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

The Apostles spent three years learning directly from Christ and they messed things up even after that. Peter denied Christ three times on the night He was betrayed by Judas and most of the others fled and Judas killed himself.

We have thousands of pages of material written over the centuries trying to answer questions such as "Is God a Trinity?", "Is Jesus God?", "Did God die on the cross", "What is the Eucharist?", "Why do bad things happen to good people?", and the list goes on. There is far more out there that Scripture may not answer clearly.

Thanks for the reply, GreekOrthodox.
Well if your point is that Scripture doesn't always provide a clear answer, you'll get no argument from me. But isn't the thousands of pages of material written over the centuries that you refer to just human interpretation of the Bible, of which one is capable of excercising for himself?
(hope the last part of that sentence conveys my point/makes sense. my vocabulary is limited)

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

We have scholars and seminary colleges who have studied the scriptures extensively for decades who can’t agree on doctrines. A simple reading of the scriptures will not always reveal its sound doctrines and I guarantee you that during a second read thru you will learn something new that you didn’t realize the first time.

Thanks BNR,
Yeah, I'm not suggesting that one simple reading will get you up to speed with clergy. But I think your first sentence validates the point of my original post.

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

The Bible is the "standard" the "ruler" the "acid test" for any doctrine, practice, teaching

"they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things (spoken by Paul) were SO" Acts 17:11.

Jesus was trained as a carpenter - no Bible text in the OT predicted that but it would have been part of the gospel story and would not have been considered to be in contradiction to scripture.

The prophet Agabus warns about a drought in the NT and warns Paul about his upcoming prison time if he goes to Jerusalem. Neither of Ababus' prophecies/predictions are found in the OT text - but "would not have been considered to be in contradiction to scripture"

1 Cor 12 and 1 Cor 14:1-2 points to prophecy as an ongoing gift for the church as does Eph 4.

John tells us about the 1000 year millennium in Rev 20 and no other Bible writer mentions that length of time to follow the 2nd coming (where we have he "first resurrection" According to Rev 20) and being before the second resurrection. That too "would not have been considered to be in contradiction to scripture" by the NT readers.

Still - it is also true that none of that is an argument for not-testing all doctrine by the Bible.

Thanks for the response, Bob.
I think you're agreeing with me but I'm not entirely sure. I'm not the smartest guy in the world so some of you guys can easily talk over my head.

 

[tdidymas]

Thanks for the response tdidymas.
Appears to me you get the gist of my post and pretty much agree with it. I suspect I'll hear alot about the Holy Spirit in the responses and that's a valid point. But do we know anything of the Holy Spirit without the Bible?

Yes, there is something to be said of experiencing God. Yet, the subject of the Holy Spirit and His work is very controversial these days. But when I talked about the Holy Spirit doing His work of illuminating truth in scripture, I was talking about His actual work. I was not talking about our understanding of the Holy Spirit. Do you see the difference?

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

Is the Bible not our one and only source?

Hello HBAT, yes it is our only source for understanding the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and who God is.

It is also allows understanding of many other things that are found with-in scripture (Mainly speaking on the new testament / of course the Old Testament is useful as well for contextual purposes and history).

There is also history (most likely) that we can go look at Romans and how it was, maybe Galilee back in those days (When Christ was walking around), though I have never personally went to go and look them up.

A teacher taught me a lot, and to mindful of historical things going on, and to understand that the bible was written for a group of people long ago, but the bible is now a gift that we can go and look back into as a reference to finding out Truth.

(The primary way of life is to live by the spirit and to be close to God, and to love others with mercy, forgiveness, kindness, pray for our enemies, pray for all people no matter who they are, what they have done, even if others have doctrinal differences through out what they have learned from churches, or other people.)

Thank God we have the bible what a wonderful gift!

How awesome it is even more we have heard the story about the Lord Jesus Christ, and that God desires and wants to have a relationship with all people. If they so choose to open up their hearts and let the light of Christ Jesus in.

Be blessed.

thanks for the response, Agallagher.
It appears you agree with me.
(geez, I'm so stupid. Although I've seen you use the acronym on my other threads, I thought you were talking to someone else. I just now figured out that I'm HBAT)

 

[BNR32FAN]

Thanks BNR,
Yeah, I'm not suggesting that one simple reading will get you up to speed with clergy. But I think your first sentence validates the point of my original post.

I do absolutely agree that reading the Bible for yourself is absolutely mandatory for being able to determine truth from false. The word of God is not something to be taken lightly and not something you simply want to trust someone else to tell you what God has said to us.

 

[bling]

This world around us is consistent with the way people are in scripture so the world itself becomes a source of knowledge since it is God's "word", spoken into existence.
Mainly I see we have the indwelling Holy Spirit, who if left unquenched will lead us to the truth.

 

[concretecamper]

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?)

If the Bible supported your claim, then I think the Bible would tell us. As it is, the Bible doesnt claim to be our "only source" so I think that pretty much settles it.

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

If the Bible supported your claim, then I think the Bible would tell us. As it is, the Bible doesnt claim to be our "only source" so I think that pretty much settles it.

thanks for the reply concretcamper,
I'm thinking Revelation 22:17 thru 19 kinda supports, but I can see where an argument could be made that it does not. What would be an example of another source?
And whatever the external source may be, wouldn't it have to be validated through the Bible? And I guess a good answer to this would be "yes it should be validated through the Bible, but that doesn't nullify an external source". But I dunno, seems like a circular reference to me. I.E, one could say the Holy Spirit is an external source, but without the Bible we'd know nothing of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

If the Bible supported your claim, then I think the Bible would tell us. As it is, the Bible doesnt claim to be our "only source" so I think that pretty much settles it.