Show me in Scripture

[Nanopants]

Yes I did Paul says as much to keep tradition, the Bible alone has given the world a mess

That seems to be true, but still, that doesn't justify our judgement of the methods of God.

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it. -Isa 55:11

 

[Albion]

Yes I did Paul says as much to keep tradition, the Bible alone has given the world a mess

Paul said to keep their traditions. He did not say to keep a theory that there is an alternative source of divine revelation next to God's word and it is human history and opinion. That's called Tradition. Not traditions. Who knows what he meant by the traditions of the people he spoke to, but it could well have been little more than continuing to go to synagogue and observing the Jewish customs, etc. Those are traditions. And if the Bible has given the world a mess--which is an opinion, I suppose--it isn't because people thought it to be the ultimate authority. It's more the doing of those who tried to fashion an alternative. What Bible Alone Christians created the Great Schism of 1054 that split Christendom in two and left it open to the advance of the Muslims, for instance? That's right; neither side was Bible Alone.

 

[whitetiger1]

Still it does not say to use the Bible alone. There is a big deal made of that concept but the saying of Bible alone can not be found in Scripture. In fact it is a modern idea (being in the last few hundreds years) of just "the Bible and me" where the individual is the authority on what they understand the Bible to mean and no one can't tell another they are really wrong. You would never find such a thing in the Church for the first 1500 hundred years

 

[Albion]

Still it does not say to use the Bible alone.

And it does not say to use anything else, does it? No. So we cannot move casually from saying what you did to the supposed alternative--

'If the Bible does not say to use it alone, then we'll use this and this and this and this.'

Does that make any sense? Where would the justification for whatever is chosen come from?

But wait. I maintain that the Bible DOES say to use it alone.

It says repeatedly that it is from God (the alternatives have never been shown to be from God; there's just a claim that they must be) and that it is of the highest worth. Now I ask you, if it is of the highest worth, doesn't that mean that there is nothing else that is its equal or above it?? Of course it does.

 

[Albion]

In fact it is a modern idea (being in the last few hundreds years) of just "the Bible and me" where the individual is the authority on what they understand the Bible to mean

Hold it. You just moved the goal posts and I must ask you to ask one question at a time. We were discussing whether or not the Bible Alone is our guide. Now you are saying that the individual should or should not interpret it. Those are two entirely different issues.

If I ask what goes into an apple pie and maintain that it's apples and not oranges, do you then answer that some people don't like pie??

The Bible does testify to its own value. Now, if some individuals misunderstand what it is saying, that doesn't change the value of the Bible up or down in the least, not any more than if a person were to say that the first amendment to the US Constitution forbade the use of sugar. The Constitution is still the same, even when someone or other doesn't understand it, right? What's more, it's not because of Bible Alone that individuals have the ability to interpret the Scriptures. The Reformation held that the individual should be allowed to have access to the Bible. Does that seem wrong to you? It DID NOT say that everything that everyone came up with after reading it was true.

 

[whitetiger1]

And it does not say to use anything else, does it? No. So we cannot move casually from saying what you did to the supposed alternative--

'If the Bible does not say to use it alone, then we'll use this and this and this and this.'

Does that make any sense? Where would the justification for whatever is chosen come from?

But wait. I maintain that the Bible DOES say to use it alone.

It says repeatedly that it is from God (the alternatives have never been shown to be from God; there's just a claim that they must be) and that it is of the highest worth. Now I ask you, if it is of the highest worth, doesn't that mean that there is nothing else that is its equal or above it?? Of course it does.

And you can say that, as a Evangelical you can say the Bible says anything and can never be wrong because it's your interpretation. The Beauty (or ugliness depending how you see it) of being Evangelical is that your always right and free to do as you choose because your the only authority that matters. Tomorrow I can say the Bible tells me to start a new Religion, Denomination, what have you and no one could tell me I am wrong because it is me and the Bible alone.

Many of you may hate the Traditional Churches (though you will say you don't and bend over backwards to show it too) but there is direction there whereas in Evangelical Christianity there is none.

 

[whitetiger1]

Hold it. You just moved the goal posts and I must ask you to ask one question at a time. We were discussing whether or not the Bible Alone is our guide. Now you are saying that the individual should or should not interpret it. Those are two entirely different issues.

If I ask what goes into an apple pie and maintain that it's apples and not oranges, do you then answer that some people don't like pie??

The Bible does testify to its own value. Now, if some individuals misunderstand what it is saying, that doesn't change the value of the Bible up or down in the least, not any more than if a person were to say that the first amendment to the US Constitution forbade the use of sugar. The Constitution is still the same, even when someone or other doesn't understand it, right? What's more, it's not because of Bible Alone that individuals have the ability to interpret the Scriptures. The Reformation held that the individual should be allowed to have access to the Bible. Does that seem wrong to you? It DID NOT say that everything that everyone came up with after reading it was true.

There is no such animal as "the Bible alone is our guide" it is a myth, it's all about the individual

 

[Sieben]

Yes I did Paul says as much to keep tradition, the Bible alone has given the world a mess

by tradition, he says their tradition THEY have given

not... the rcc for example

 

[Albion]

There is no such animal as "the Bible alone is our guide" it is a myth, it's all about the individual

What can I say in reply to a flat non-recognition of one of Christianity's most basic concepts? It should not be necessary to argue that the Bible is the Christian religion's sacred book.

 

[Albion]

And you can say that, as a Evangelical you can say the Bible says anything and can never be wrong because it's your interpretation.

It's hardly an opinion not held by other Christians, nor something arrived at without considerable study and knowledge.

The Beauty (or ugliness depending how you see it) of being Evangelical is that your always right and free to do as you choose because your the only authority that matters.

That must be something you deduced after bad experiences with sone people who called themselves Evangelicals. I don't even know what you mean when using the term and it's certainly not true. I've been reading a lot of your posts in which you advance what are clearly ideas you've arrived at by yourself while I always take account of the wealth of Bible commentary, Christian scholarship, history, and so on.

Tomorrow I can say the Bible tells me to start a new Religion, Denomination, what have you and no one could tell me I am wrong because it is me and the Bible alone.

I'm sure you could do that and no one would jail you for it. What's your point? Am I supposed to believe, automatically, that your new religion is true and correct? Not likely.

Many of you may hate the Traditional Churches

I'm going to let that pass this time, but I'll thank you to never say "you" when you don't know who you are speaking to or what he actually believes and certainly NOT if you are going to paste the word "hate" upon your guesses. (By the way, you may have noticed the Anglican icon next to my name. There is possibly no more traditional church in all of Christendom than it.) Get a clue.

 

[whitetiger1]

What can I say in reply to a flat non-recognition of one of Christianity's most basic concepts? It should not be necessary to argue that the Bible is the Christian religion's sacred book.

I am not saying it isn't. I am saying the Bible alone stuff is a myth because each person can tell themselves what the Bible says, it is all about the individual and no one can tell the individual what to do. It's systemic in society and parts of Christianity making one self their boss setting up their own "Holy Tradition" making themselves the active authority.

You don't believe me look at GT no one person agrees with another and should they venture to tell them they are wrong a fight ensues. I believe that kind of Christianity is the ultimate in "selfish Christianity". Humans are selfish and it hits every area including their Religion

 

[whitetiger1]

I'm sure you could do that and no one would jail you for it. What's your point? Am I supposed to believe, automatically, that your new religion is true and correct? Not likely.

And I am not going to believe you. Am I suppose to believe you know it all just because you proclaim you know more than other Faith Traditions all the while using your own Tradition. Get a clue

 

[Albion]

And I am not going to believe you.

OK. It's worth knowing that you're not willing to discuss.

Cheers.

 

[whitetiger1]

Why should anyone believe you their interpretation is just as valid as yours. No one can tell another they are wrong when the only use the Bible alone

 

[Sieben]

Why should anyone believe you their interpretation is just as valid as yours. No one can tell another they are wrong when the only use the Bible alone

I have the opposite view

Scripture is authoritative

It means what it says

Those who practice sin die

Those with sin go to hell

Definite

 

[whitetiger1]

I have the opposite view

Scripture is authoritative

It means what it says

Those who practice sin die

Those with sin go to hell

Definite

And you can believe that and no one can say your wrong because it is you who interpret the Bible and use yourself as the active authority with your experience and ideas in looking at Scripture. That's the thing about Protestantism, Evangelicalism, or whatever one wants to call themselves you are your own boss. In that their is no greater authority then self.

That's why I say why should anyone believe anyone else when it's the Bible and me alone; In that system no one is wrong.

 

[Gnarwhal]

I have the opposite view

Scripture is authoritative

It means what it says

Those who practice sin die

Those with sin go to hell

Definite

The flaw with that is that no matter what anybody says, scripture is always being interpreted. We interpret it through our past church experiences (or lack thereof), through how we were raised, what kind of socio-economic environment we live (and have lived) in, our political persuasions, et al.

So many times I've heard people say "I'm just taking Scripture for what it says" but what they're saying it says is riddled with their own interpretation. It's in inevitable. We all have our lenses.

 

[whitetiger1]

The flaw with that is that no matter what anybody says, scripture is always being interpreted. We interpret it through our past church experiences (or lack thereof), through how we were raised, what kind of socio-economic environment we live (and have lived) in, our political persuasions, et al.

So many times I've heard people say "I'm just taking Scripture for what it says" but what they're saying it says is riddled with their own interpretation. It's in inevitable. We all have our lenses.

Exactly. Said much better than I could

 

[Albion]

The flaw with that is that no matter what anybody says, scripture is always being interpreted.

Then what you are describing is the flaw in everything we think we know from whatever source. Yet those who doubt scripture always are trying to sell us on some alternative that's of human origin. Can you explain why this would be better?

 

[Gnarwhal]

Then what you are describing is the flaw in everything we think we know from whatever source. Yet those who doubt scripture always are trying to sell us on some alternative that's of human origin. Can you explain why this would be better?

Well the answer to the flaw would be a consensus. When a large body uniformly accepts certain interpretations, as was done in the various ecumenical councils.