Is the Bible not our one and only source?

[tdidymas]

This is what I struggle with. The Bible says God knows everything, never changes, and wants everyone to know His Word clearly. So why is the Bible written in a way that allows disagreements on what the verses and chapters mean? If God wants to be clear to everyone, why is the Bible often hard to understand even if you have been saved for decades? For example, whether you believe baptism is required to be saved or not, you probably got your belief from Scripture. There should be no confusion about what we must do to become Christians and demonstrate our love for God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But there always is and for that reason, we need pastors and priests to help ourselves understand it.

Those with better understanding are responsible to explain the truth to younger Christians, which is what Eph. 4:11-12 is about. Since no two people are exactly alike, and no two people have exactly the same experience, everyone has a different perspective. God used fallible men to write an infallible work. There will always be controversies, as Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 11:19 because human language doesn't clearly explain spiritual things, as Paul told us in 1 Cor. 2:13.

If God wanted it to be clear, He would have made it so, perhaps like a 4th grade primer. But even Peter said that some things were hard to understand (2 Pet. 3:16). The best things in life are not easy to obtain, so for a clear understanding, we have to work for it by study. We also need debates in order to get clear about what was in the minds of the apostles and prophets when they wrote the scriptures.

Paul declared in Acts 14:22 that we enter the kingdom of God through many tribulations. Like a difficult obstacle course, we run to the goal line, while believing that God is helping us through it. Such is trying to understand scripture. So the fact that the gospel can't be understood and obeyed by mere natural reasoning, we have to rely on God to teach us and lead us into understanding of the truths we need, and perseverance is part of it, because it is part of godliness.

But one other thing we should be aware of is the rules of proper interpretation, and that is something that is also controversial. I think the main things required are: (1) Knowledge of ancient cultures, thought, and idioms, which requires some extra-biblical documents, and we need reputable historians for this. (2) Knowledge of how to dig meaning out of the context of passages, and this requires familiarity with both the context at issue and the wider context of the whole scripture. (3) Reliance on the Spirit to guide our understanding, while resisting the temptation to jump to false conclusions. There are other criteria for practicing good interpretation.

 

[DamianWarS]

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 see interpretations or outside biblical revelations as not above being challenged (regardless of who says them). And although the product of which can create an infinite amount of schisms we shouldn't allow what an individual or authority says to operate above being challenged. If someone says something it still needs to be able to be critically defended as well as biblically supported and if it can't than its irresponsible and deceptive.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Thanks for the response, Aussie.
Interesting take in that it's "oustide the box". I like that. It appears as though you have a great relationship with God. I applaud that and am glad for you. But there are some of us who go through dark periods where we feel God has abandoned us (and maybe he has for all I know). I think under those circumstances the Bible is the most reliable source/tool to restore or establish the relationship.

Absolutely. I can assure you that I did not get where I am overnight and I still have periods of stress and strain. I've just got back from visiting a dear friend in hospital. She in intensive care and so far, no diagnosis. In the 49 years that I've been born again, I've had many opportunities to prove God. Many times I've failed because I've let go of His promises.

There is a place in God that is called "The knowledge of the Truth". I can't describe it properly, but it means that doubt is replaced by faith. For example, I know that God never leaves us or forsakes us. I remember reading that and saying to myself, "Well, He's forsaken me". I not pretend it's not a struggle still at times. But God has formed a stability in me (by His grace) and I'm founded on the solid rock. All glory goes to Him, because I'm most unstable in myself.

 

[Lawrence87]

The Bible is important, but as you say the devil awaits eagerly the one who reads the Bible with the prideful thought that they alone are capable of interpreting it correctly. Many people think that you can't go wrong just reading the Bible by yourself. But whilst it may look like a wholesome and Holy activity you can easily be led astray. The devil can appear as an angel of light, and can deliver us thoughts tempting us to think our interpretations are accurate when in actual fact we are being led further from God by our misunderstanding. This is when the devil can be really treacherous. A Christian can see how something like pornography is the work of the devil, and so he attacks Christians in more subtle ways.

This is why we need spiritual guidance, and we need the interpretations that are based on the Church Fathers. Some think that the Church Fathers were making up stuff and adding stuff, but really they did so based on the Scriptures, and if you don't think so that is only because you never read their works. Also a lot of standard Christian theology came from them, whether we hold them in high regard or not.

If you think reading the Bible on your own is enough and trusting your own intellect to be able to interpret it correctly, that is perhaps the most prideful thing you could possibly do, and the devil will have a field day with you.

 

[TJB]

Thanks for the reply, TJB.
Yes, that does make sense. I'll admit that I'm not up to speed on the genealogy of the Bible but I do recall hearing something like this. I'm wondering what period in time the church council assembled the Bible? Was it a month after Revelations or years? Regardless, it seems to me that when this is taken into consideration, the "word of God" was decided/assembled in a big way by human intervention. A bit unsettling to me. Unless we want to adopt the idea that it was God's intervention that guided the church council.
(Do you/or anyone know if we have access to the gospels/books that were rejected?)

I think the idea is that we reached the fullness of revelation in the life of Jesus, and that can't be added to (which discounts things such as the Book of Mormon) and the later books of the Bible - Epistles of John / Jude are working out what Christs life meant for us

The Council that fixed the canon were the councils of Carthage in the 4th Century (under Augustine) althought it was Trent that made it official for teh Catholic Church - there are small differences in the Protestant canon..... so certainly the Holy Spirit has continued to work in guiding us and we have to have some sort of authority outsided of Scripture - but which doesnt deviate from Scripture

 

[TJB]

(Do you/or anyone know if we have access to the gospels/books that were rejected?)

I think there are about 20 apochryphal Gospels in circulation, some dealing with Jesus's infancy, some belonging to the Gnostic there are quite a few collections of them published

I think you have started a good thread here - Thanks for being such a benign reactant..... and some of the answers seem very thoughtful and helpful .... I like the way your humility and genuine curiosity seems to bring out good in people

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Thanks, Michael.

Blessings.

 

[Roy Taylor]

Yes, the Bible is the only source we physically have in our world. You can listen to a man or a woman but I would put everything you hear from them on a shelf in your mind until you know that it lines up with the Bible. Now, as you read the bible, I would not allow any any man or woman or doctrine persuade you what it is your reading. The Holy Ghost will slowly teach you what the bible is saying as long as you are doing what it says to do (sayings of Jesus). Jesus says if you love me, keep my commandments. Most preachers and teachers today don't keep the commandments of Jesus and don't have fruit meet for repentance. They are blind leaders of the blind. Let the Holy Ghost teach you. Not a church.

 

[Leaf473]

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?)

Hi Hanging by a Thread,
Great thread idea!

The Bible says a lot of things, many of them don't easily harmonize with each other. How a person decides to deal with those apparent contradictions will greatly determine whether they end up as catholic, this or that flavor of protestant, imo.

Or symbolism in The Bible. A passage is literal, or symbolic? Again, great variation among believers.

I don't think the Bible is all we have, though. We have the holy spirit guiding us, both as individuals and the body of Christ as a whole.

Imo

 

[GodLovesCats]

The Bible is important, but as you say the devil awaits eagerly the one who reads the Bible with the prideful thought that they alone are capable of interpreting it correctly. Many people think that you can't go wrong just reading the Bible by yourself. But whilst it may look like a wholesome and Holy activity you can easily be led astray. The devil can appear as an angel of light, and can deliver us thoughts tempting us to think our interpretations are accurate when in actual fact we are being led further from God by our misunderstanding. This is when the devil can be really treacherous. A Christian can see how something like pornography is the work of the devil, and so he attacks Christians in more subtle ways.

I remember falling into that trap. While reading about God giving Moses very specific descriptions of both the Ark of the Covenant and the clothing Aaron must wear, then people following his orders exactly, as a huge fan of very ornate objects and patterns, I thought it would be awesome to own pictures of its rooms and courtyard for decoration with Aaron in one of them. But that obviously is making a holy thing secular. God did not tell Moses to write this for the same reason home and garden magazines are published. So of course I knew the devil was working in me while reading those chapters in Exodus.

 

[1watchman]

I suggest one read "all the counsel of God" as God tells us, and be "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" as He says. Some people 'cherry pick' verses and build a doctrine on that ---not good! This is the ONLY way we know the mind and ways of God for man.

My thought to seekers is always to begin in the four Gospels, and for a beginning to first hear God speaking to you at John 3; John 14; Acts 4:12; Romans 8; etc. There are NO contradictions in Holy Scripture! After understanding God's redemptive truths one can read of Church truth in the Epistles. The Old Testament is for history, creation, the Israelite religion (which is presently set aside for killing their Messiah); and one needs to never challenge God, but know Him THROUGH His "...beloved Son": Jesus the Christ. Keep looking up, friend!

 

[lsume]

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?)

Christ must open ones eyes. When He does, we See The Word as Spiritual.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

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 the Holy Spirit who leads us in all truth. Without Him, we ARE left with only the interpretations of men. Be blessed.

 

[fhansen]

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?

Not agreed in the least.
1) The disciples received and preached the gospel before a word of the New Testament was written. And their understanding was necessary in order to explain the meaning of OT Scripture to others as needed.
2) Scripture, itself, tells us that not everything was written, and to hold to both written and unwritten teachings.
3) Most believers have arguably been illiterate during the history of Christianity.
4) There’s no guarantee whatsoever that a reader will interpret the Bible correctly on many relevant teachings, as disagreement is rampant in these areas between sincere people, often with equally plausible arguments, Bible scholars included. You simply cannot beat experience, nor can we do away with it without losing a big part of our faith. And the ancient churches in the east and in the west share that experience going back to the beginning which is why they happen to agree on the most basic points of theology.

 

[PaulCyp1]

If the Bible was to be our only source of truth, seems like our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ might have mentioned it? Of course He couldn't mention it, because the Church He founded didn't produce the Bible until three and a half centuries after Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. So, what did Jesus say was to be our only guide to truth? He founded one Church, and promised the leadership of that one Church "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". That's what the Bible has to say about God's truth - that you find it in His Church, or you don't find it at all. Jesus said "by their fruits shall ye know them". So, what is the fruit of "the Bible alone"? Over 6,000 different denominations, each claiming to follow "the Bible alone", yet the teaching of each one contradicting the teaching of the others, all in just a few hundred years. And that doesn't even include the 20,000+ so-called "non-denominational" Protestant churches. Truth cannot conflict with truth, so obviously this unauthorized manmade tradition teaches a great deal of untruth. Meanwhile, the one Church founded by Jesus Christ (which has many more members than all Protestant churches combined) remains one in belief, one in teaching, one in worship, one in biblical understanding throughout the world after 2,000 years, with no conflicting denominations. You just can't beat God's plan.

 

[pescador]

If the Bible was to be our only source of truth, seems like our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ might have mentioned it? Of course He couldn't mention it, because the Church He founded didn't produce the Bible until three and a half centuries after Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. So, what did Jesus say was to be our only guide to truth? He founded one Church, and promised the leadership of that one Church "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". That's what the Bible has to say about God's truth - that you find it in His Church, or you don't find it at all. Jesus said "by their fruits shall ye know them". So, what is the fruit of "the Bible alone"? Over 6,000 different denominations, each claiming to follow "the Bible alone", yet the teaching of each one contradicting the teaching of the others, all in just a few hundred years. And that doesn't even include the 20,000+ so-called "non-denominational" Protestant churches. Truth cannot conflict with truth, so obviously this unauthorized manmade tradition teaches a great deal of untruth. Meanwhile, the one Church founded by Jesus Christ (which has many more members than all Protestant churches combined) remains one in belief, one in teaching, one in worship, one in biblical understanding throughout the world after 2,000 years, with no conflicting denominations. You just can't beat God's plan.

Sola scriptura!

Are you really saying that the Catholic church "remains one in belief, one in teaching, one in worship, one in biblical understanding throughout the world after 2,000 years, with no conflicting denominations"? Shall we start with Martin Luther, who found so much wrong with the Catholic church that he left its corruption to bring believers back to the truth of the Bible? What about the crusades to take back the Holy Land by force? What about the inquisitions wherein many innocent people were killed?

You wrote, "the Church He founded didn't produce the Bible until three and a half centuries". Are you seriously saying that Jesus, who read from the Bible in the synagogues and often quoted the Bible, was using some other book? In fact, aside from the Hebrew scrolls, there was also the Septuagint -- the Koine Greek translation -- from which Jesus, Paul, and others quoted.

"The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13) means just what it says. Not the Catholic church, not the Pope, not the cardinals, bishops, priests, etc. -- The Holy Spirit, given to all believers (not just Catholics) will guide us into all truth.

Truth cannot conflict with truth, so obviously this unauthorized manmade tradition teaches a great deal of untruth. To this day, the Catholic church shuns all Christians that don't believe in their doctrine, yet the Bible says that we are all the Body of Christ?

 

[LightLoveHope]

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?)

Our source is God expressed through His word by the Holy Spirit lived out in His people.

To be mature in the Lord takes a long time. The clergy are there to help with dedicated time and energy.

The problem is linking a salary to faith when many lose their faith or have none.

God bless you

 

[Marumorose]

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 not the only source. There are many books out there that can teach you more about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his parables. Remember that the original bible has 75 books and the bible we read has only 66 books.
To be honest with you, the bible is just the beginning of gaining wisdom from God

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I think its important to remember there is more than one spirit. There is the Spirit of Truth and the "other" spirit. The Spirit of Truth will never lead you away from breaking Gods laws or or what is written in the Bible. The "other" spirit has a counterfeit to everything so any supplemental readings should magnify what is written in scriptures, not change, alter or tweak. God's Word does not need tweaking. The Bible says all words from God are pure and not to add anything to it.

Proverbs 30
5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

 

[concretecamper]

The Bible says all words from God are pure and not to add anything to it.

agreed

5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.

every Word of God is not in the Bible. In fact, Jesus said He that hears you hears Me. If you hear the Church, you hear Him.

6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

so true