Why do all christian theological arguments turn on biblical proof-texts?

[Prufrock]

If the Bible is so important to the faith, why didn't Jesus write anything down? If it's because he was from an oral tradition society, why do we give such credibility to the written accounts and letters that appear to have been written much later? I know this is all post-modern, emergent crap to some, but to me and many my age, it is a nagging question.

Will Christianity always use the Bible as the final arbiter for apologetics and theology? If not, what will take its place? Can principles like historical criticism, truth, love, community, grace, or forgiveness ever overcome Sola Scriptura?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I think that is true only for the crowd that wants to stand on the Bible alone. Which is kind of ironic since the Bible itself proclaims there is more to stand on than what is written there and it never claims to be ALL one needs to stand on.

 

[ChristianT]

I think that is true only for the crowd that wants to stand on the Bible alone. Which is kind of ironic since the Bible itself proclaims there is more to stand on than what is written there and it never claims to be ALL one needs to stand on.

This, and 1/2 of all Christians don't believe in Sola Script.

 

[single eye]

your question about why all christians proof-text is an important and disturbing one. after 8 years as a baptist and 2 years of bible college, lack of satisfactory answers led me to give up on christianity. There is something better for our understanding of "the faith which was once delivered to the Saints". I call it The Uncorruptable Chain of Credibility. We only need understand one symbolic analogy from Jesus, "straight is the gate, and narrow is the way that leads to everlasting life, and few there be that find it". Apply yourself to finding the connection to my earlier quote from Jude 3 and the straight gate quote, and the U.C.C. should become clear to you.

 

[Tzav]

If the Bible is so important to the faith, why didn't Jesus write anything down? If it's because he was from an oral tradition society, why do we give such credibility to the written accounts and letters that appear to have been written much later? I know this is all post-modern, emergent crap to some, but to me and many my age, it is a nagging question.

Will Christianity always use the Bible as the final arbiter for apologetics and theology? If not, what will take its place? Can principles like historical criticism, truth, love, community, grace, or forgiveness ever overcome Sola Scriptura?

I probably don't have the educations some of you have, so it is likely you can write/talk circles around me, but my answer is based upon my belief system and what the Bible says.

First, Messiah is not a created being; rather, He is G-d Who was there from the beginning and is Creator [John 1]. He is The Author of the Scriptures by the H Spirit, The Author and Finisher of the faith, The Inspirer. He did not just suddenly make an appearance in Bethlehem as an infant but was there from the beginning, making many appearances, sometimes called "the angel." When He appeared before Abraham, and the Scriptures call Him "G-d" [Gen 17]. There are other appearances of Messiah, often as the Announcer and Giver of life, and to Moses as the Giver of Torah.

When people want to prove the veracity of the Bible by the Bible itself, some find it humorous, forgetting that the Bible was written over so many years and by so many people through The Author -- that's the same way other people attempt to prove their own truths: by the witnesses. The Bible is many books by many authors, through One Author, within a single binding.

People bring up the idea that there are so many versions of the Bible, so it is not worthy of trust. More modern discoveries of writings take care of that problem, as do the Scriptures protected by the Jewish community through time.

Sola Scriptura. It is all we need. Some of the rest is valuable as tradition, but the only witness we truly have is Scripture. But each one of us believes what we choose to believe, some of us because we were designated to believe G-d and some of us because we will not believe G-d.

 

[Prufrock]

...There is something better for our understanding of "the faith which was once delivered to the Saints". I call it The Uncorruptable Chain of Credibility. We only need understand one symbolic analogy from Jesus, "straight is the gate, and narrow is the way that leads to everlasting life, and few there be that find it". Apply yourself to finding the connection to my earlier quote from Jude 3 and the straight gate quote, and the U.C.C. should become clear to you.

I am afraid you will have to expound a bit more. Otherwise I would only be guessing.

 

[Norah63]

Jesus baptizes in the Holy Ghost, then you can have Jesus revealed to you.
It is the goodness of God that leads men to repentance.
Some search the scriptures and never come to Jesus.

 

[Norah63]

Jesus is the baptizer in the Holy Ghost, then you may have Jesus revealed to you.
It is the goodness of God that leads men to repentance.
Some search the scriptures and never come to Jesus as the way.
Its a heart trip more than a head trip.........

 

[Der Alte]

If the Bible is so important to the faith, why didn't Jesus write anything down? If it's because he was from an oral tradition society, why do we give such credibility to the written accounts and letters that appear to have been written much later? I know this is all post-modern, emergent crap to some, but to me and many my age, it is a nagging question.

Will Christianity always use the Bible as the final arbiter for apologetics and theology? If not, what will take its place? Can principles like historical criticism, truth, love, community, grace, or forgiveness ever overcome Sola Scriptura?

To be "Christianity" it must use the Bible, that is the only record we have of "Christ" whom we as Christians follow. Anyone who wants to follow some other teaching is free to do so. As Joshua said, choose you this day whom you will serve, as for me and my house we will serve God.

 

[single eye]

of course. in Jude 3 we read "...ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the Saints". This is a clear statement to the fact that the revelation of true faith only occured one time, not progressively over thousands of years. We know for a fact that Jesus chose 12 Saints and trained them night and day for over 3 years. We also know that they were sent "another Comforter" to complete their training so that they could write scripture. We also know that no one else claims to have received any training at all before writing. Logical conclusion, only the Disciples wrote scripture.

Straight gate= Jesus+another Comforter.
Narrow Way= The Apostles
Life everlasting= being set free from the ignorance of our true purpose.

let me know if further clarification is necessary.

 

[Ironhold]

The first thing to understand is that the books of the NT aren't arranged in the order that they were written.

Rather, the first batch of Paul's epistles came first, followed by the first of the Gospels.

This is critical, as it gives context to the motives behind writing everything down.

With Paul's missionary work helping to spread the gospel and his letters helping to codify what Paul regarded as official theology, a need arose for the leadership of the early church to put on paper an official narrative of events concerning the life of Jesus and his teachings. This way, the narrative could be circulated among the congregations and thereby establish a standard.

Mark's gospel was the first of the four accepted gospels, and so things went from there.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Sola Scriptura. It is all we need....

Well, exactly! I've believed this for years.

 

[single eye]

have to burst your bubble. sola scriptura only applies to the catholic bible. the protestant bible was based on the priesthood of the believer. neither have anything to do with the writing of Scripture. it has to do with separating writings into groups, putting them in a single collection and naming it the holy bible. the protestant reformers did not claim to have the authority to decide for everyone which writings were scripture.

 

[Tzav]

Hate to burst YOUR bubble, but that is not correct.

 

[Norah63]

And we are thankful to those who have preserved scripture down thru the years.
All scripture is given for our help and edfication. Read and be blessed!

 

[ChetSinger]

It is through the scriptures and the testimony of the early church fathers that we know how Christ and the first Christians lived. What can substitute for that?

If you want to learn about someone's life, read biographies of them...

 

[Der Alte]

It is through the scriptures and the testimony of the early church fathers that we know how Christ and the first Christians lived. What can substitute for that?

If you want to learn about someone's life, read biographies of them...

I have been saying that here for over a decade here but there are some folk that think the church has been wrong for 2000 years +/- and some guy found out the truth in the mid 19th century and they're going to straighten us all out.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Hate to burst YOUR bubble, but that is not correct.

Exactly; this statement was not correct. Sola Scriptura has been used widely among Protestants since the Reformation, and it upholds a Biblical principle about the authority of the Word of God.

 

[bling]

If the Bible is so important to the faith, why didn't Jesus write anything down? If it's because he was from an oral tradition society, why do we give such credibility to the written accounts and letters that appear to have been written much later? I know this is all post-modern, emergent crap to some, but to me and many my age, it is a nagging question.

Will Christianity always use the Bible as the final arbiter for apologetics and theology? If not, what will take its place? Can principles like historical criticism, truth, love, community, grace, or forgiveness ever overcome Sola Scriptura?

It is not that the Bible is our “only” source, but since God is consistent everything has to be consistent with the Bible. Even if you wanted to include other books or letters to guide you, these “extra” letters and books have to be consistent with the smaller version of scripture.

We are not placing our “faith” in a book, but are placing it in the living Christ that lives in and through true Christians.

As far as “why did Jesus not write something”, just think what would have happened if Deity had personally written a book: like the Muslim’s with the Quran would we all have to learn Greek and treasure these words to the point of worshipping the “book” itself (and not Deity)? Could it really be translated or could it a Christian allow the book to ever be destroyed? What lessons can you learn from the fact a “regular” Christian could be inspired to the point of writing part of the Bible (what could God possibly do through you if you would not quench the Spirit?)

 

[faroukfarouk]

And we are thankful to those who have preserved scripture down thru the years.
All scripture is given for our help and edfication. Read and be blessed!

God Himself preserved Scripture.