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

[Albion]

Well we can agree to disagree then and I have no interest in playing "yes it does" - "no it doesn't". Which is why I did not quote anything. If I did I would not use John 20, though clearly 20.23 would be good in discussing whether or not God gave some of His Authority to the Church before going to the Cross.

If I did want to quote I would use:
2 Tim 2:2 & 1:13, 2 Thes 2:15 & 3.6, John 21.25, Mark 13.31 & 16:15, Matt 23:2-3, 2 Pet 1:20, 3:15-16, Rom 10:17, 1 Cor 15:1-2,

And am not intersted in debating the meaning of those verses, to me it is clear the Church from the beginning was relying on oral teaching/tradition well before the NT letters were found in a list of books appropriate to read during the Liturgy.

What you need to keep in mind is that a truth that we have in writing that is also carried by oral tradition is one thing, while an idea that is extra-Scriptural or unscriptural is something else. It's only the latter that is at issue--and there is no support in Scripture for considering such as that to be the equal of Scripture. None.

 

[South Bound]

If one is going to attempt to be a man and call someone out for saying something one thinks is false, then have the guts to put out there where the Bible says it stands alone as all a Christians needs.

I don't believe somebody who holds one position should be obligated to defend their position when the issue is another position.

If someone did make the mistaken claim that "the Bible is all one needs", and the topic was the insufficiency of scripture, I don't believe that would negate the responsibility of the person making the claim for the insufficiency of scripture.

That the NT makes reference to material that is not recorded there being VERY IMPORTANT to both the Apostles and early Church leaders is common knowledge by most Christians even if some will claim now that we cannot possibly know now what those things are/were.

So, naturally, your assumption is that it's something not found elsewhere in scripture. Isn't that a bit dangerous? Wouldn't that allow you to preach the most horrendous false gospel and then justify it by saying, "Well, the Bible says a lot of things weren't written down. How do you know this isn't one of them?"

((NOTE TO HAMMSTER AND HISTORICUS: PLEASE NOTE THAT AT NO TIME IN MY POST DID I SAY THAT CATHOLICS ARE NOT CHRISTANS OR PREACH A FALSE GOSPEL. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSON, PLEASE FELL FREE TO ASSUME I'M TALKING ABOUT A PROTESTANT OR OTHER NON-CATHOLIC))

So the only thing I could possibly be called out on is the position that the Bible never says it is ALL we need.

Which is true. Now, would you like to answer the question?

how could my inability to give a verse that does not exist demonstarte a lack of guts? This call is a bluff and a weak one at that.

You said "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." (Bolding mine.)

So, first you said, "the Bible itself proclaims" and now you're saying such a verse doesn't exist? Which is it? Does the Bible proclaim or does such a verse not exist?

 

[Albion]

So, first you said, "the Bible itself proclaims" and now you're saying such a verse doesn't exist? Which is it? Does the Bible proclaim or does such a verse not exist?

It may be part of that "I could provide verses if I wanted to, but I don't want to, but here are some verses that use the word 'traditions,' so there you go" stuff.

 

[Prufrock]

Thanks all for their thoughtful comments. I know this is a very touchy subject. Even Billy Graham struggled with the authority of the Bible well into adulthood, finally giving the issue entirely up to God in an act of ultimate faith.

I know when I was in college, I struggled with the authority of the Bible as well. Apologetic books like "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by McDowell and "Systemic Theology" by Gruden did not satisfy my questions, as I would ultimately find myself in facing the following incomplete proposition: the Bible is inerrant because...

It was an appeal to authority, either it was inerrant because it stated it was inerrant, or because someone said it was, and the more I looked into the topic, the more I realized that the inerrancy claims came later.

After considering your comments, I suppose it is best to rest on the scriptures as the best representations we have thus far concerning who Jesus was and what he taught. I don't think I will ever be able to read the gospels or paul's letters without considering the conditions in which those books were written, years after the fact by second-hand witnesses, based off an oral tradition, and written for the purpose of (a) refuting heresy and (b) gaining converts.

I will read the books prayerfully and with caution, relying ultimately on the person of Jesus as a revelation from God, and on God to deal with the fate of my eternal soul according to God's own purposes.

... an idea that is extra-Scriptural or unscriptural is something else. It's only the latter that is at issue--and there is no support in Scripture for considering such as that to be the equal of Scripture. None.

What of the idea that a homosexual act is inherently sinful? There is no scriptural support to refute that, and plenty of scriptural support for the idea. Yet, many churches are beginning to permit homosexual membership, and homosexual clergy in some areas. What do we do about those pesky "proof-texts" that speak against homosexuality or any other idea we would otherwise not have qualms over?

 

[Albion]

I will read the books prayerfully and with caution, relying ultimately on the person of Jesus as a revelation from God, and on God to deal with the fate of my eternal soul according to God's own purposes.



What of the idea that a homosexual act is inherently sinful? There is no scriptural support to refute that, and plenty of scriptural support for the idea. Yet, many churches are beginning to permit homosexual membership, and homosexual clergy in some areas. What do we do about those pesky "proof-texts" that speak against homosexuality or any other idea we would otherwise not have qualms over?

I don't see any particular difficulty with this situation. All human institutions, being made by and populated by sinful men, are liable to failure.

The local church, the denomination, etc. is only a visible example or extension of the invisible church that Christ founded. IT cannot fail, but the occasional failure of societies of believers is almost a certainty. However, God continues to cleanse and renew his Church, as we see happened many times in church history. Sometimes he calls a denomination back to its senses, and sometimes he calls on his elect to leave the old one for a new start.

 

[he-man]

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?

No, the reason people wish to adhere to scripture is because when they start it is like the sweetness of HONEY, but after much digging, it become bitter and much harder to swallow with the preconceived ideas that have been bestowed upon them from false teachers, preachers. Then they do not like the instructions given and wish to follow the thinking of the general population, rather than the thinking of God as portrayed in the WRITTEN "Little Book".

Revelation 10:9 So I went to the angel and said to him, "Give me the little book." And he said to me, "Take and eat it; and it will make your stomach bitter, but it will be as sweet as honey in your mouth." (10) Then I took the little book out of the angel"s hand and ate it, and it was as sweet as honey in my mouth. But when I had eaten it, my stomach became bitter.

 

[ChetSinger]

It was an appeal to authority, either it was inerrant because it stated it was inerrant, or because someone said it was, and the more I looked into the topic, the more I realized that the inerrancy claims came later.

Hello. I don't think one has to hold to any particular statement of inerrancy to consider the NT to be the best source we have regarding the beginnings of Christianity.

I think a historical investigation will lead us to the same conclusion. For example, why were these particular books chosen for inclusion in the NT when other well-regarded books like the Shepherd of Hermas were not? The primary reason was that the early church leaders reserved their highest respect for works which could be traced to witnesses of Christ. That meant an apostle (Matthew, Peter, John, etc.) or an apostle's companion (Mark, Luke, etc.).

Regarding the assembling of the NT, a book I can personally recommend is Reinventing Jesus. Daniel B. Wallace is one of the authors, so you know it will be well-researched.

 

[single eye]

are any of you willing to set aside your bible-bias long enough to accept the following challenge. alternate reading genesis and the Apocryphon of John while asking yourself, which one sounds more like Jesus? We have clear historical evidence that Jesus had the authority to select and train the disciples before sending them "another Comforter to finish preparing them to write scripture. We have no credible evidence to presume that anyone else was qualified to write scripture. Nor do we have any credible evidence that the people who selected the books of the bible had the authority to do so. How does it make more sense to put trust for finding the true faith in anyone else but Jesus, His Disciples and what they wrote.

 

[JacobLaw]

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?

The Bible is our salvation without it no one could or would be saved; it is the only truth everything else is a lie and vain.
Bottom line for all of us is will we believe the truth or not!

And then of course the filtering through all the various pretenders that say they fit the truth, study to rightly divide the versions from the true one and only bible.
Hope ya can believe.

 

[joneysd]

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?

Jesus is God, so God's word is Jesus's word, the bible is what God wanted to say and therefore what Jesus wanted to say...

The bible is the anchor of our faith, it stops cults coming along and declaring they have a new testament.. from God...

 

[single eye]

have you never considered the possibility that you are the cult because of the bible and you are preventing the truth from reaching you?

 

[joneysd]

have you never considered the possibility that you are the cult because of the bible and you are preventing the truth from reaching you?

I think it is more likely to be in a cult without the bibles guidance...

 

[DrBubbaLove]

What you need to keep in mind is that a truth that we have in writing that is also carried by oral tradition is one thing, while an idea that is extra-Scriptural or unscriptural is something else. It's only the latter that is at issue--and there is no support in Scripture for considering such as that to be the equal of Scripture. None.

LOL. why would someone write a letter saying remember what you heard and were taught, and make a point of saying they sshould teach the same to faithful men to pass it on if the teaching was all recorded in "scripture"?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

So, first you said, "the Bible itself proclaims" and now you're saying such a verse doesn't exist? Which is it? Does the Bible proclaim or does such a verse not exist?

A dozen or more verses supporting that there were teachings not recorded, but passed from the mouth of Jesus, Apostles and their disciples. Jesus said "go and teach" not go and record everythiing that needs to be taught.

The argument then cannot be that there is no body out teachings in addition to (and supportive BTW) the Bible when the Bible clearly alludes to such teachings, as does the early writings of the Church Fathers. But the point is raised and a valid one, how can we know which of those "extra-biblical" teachings to follow and which are false.

For Catholics that answer is easy, the Church was given the Authority to preserve those teachings faithfully and we should listen to what the Church says not about what Scripture means, but in matters of faith and morales what is true - including things we will not find precisely defined in Holy Scripture. Divinity of Christ, the Trinity Doctrine, efficacy of Baptism just to name a few.

On the other hand many Protestants are left attempting to defend various such beliefs without appealing to anything other than Bible, because that is all they have. Which was my point in saying there is irony in taking that position while holding such beliefs. And it is also precisely the reason that the beliefs of various Protestant groups can vary so widely and contradict each other, all the while proclaiming the same Bible alone position. Lacking an external teaching Authority to guide the believer, each is left to their own judgement.

 

[Albion]

LOL.

That's two LOLs in a row. Apparently, I'm engaging.

why would someone write a letter saying remember what you heard and were taught, and make a point of saying they sshould teach the same to faithful men to pass it on if the teaching was all recorded in "scripture"?

Sounds reasonable to me. But you've never, ever, encountered anyone reinforcing a point already made by saying "Remember to...." huh? How strange.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

That's two LOLs in a row. Apparently, I'm engaging.


Sounds reasonable to me. But you've never, ever, encountered anyone reinforcing a point already made by saying "Remember to...." huh? How strange.

Well if someone who had also written some letters which I kept, told me to go and teach others faithfully the things I heard, I would expect they did not mean ONLY the things in those letters. So even though my wife gives me a shopping a list which includes eggs, I would expect if she started a sentence "don't forget to" that what she is about to say is either not clearly on the list or not there at all.

As we all believe things not based on the Bible alone, it also stands to reason that there was (for me is) a body of teachings carried forward by the faithful which supports (not contradicts) Scripture of course, but also expounds on points made there as well as present truths not explicitly covered or even mentioned at all there.

 

[Bongoon]

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?

And the law and the prophets were already written down, The commandments even in stone. Hallelu'Yah

 

[Bongoon]

Well if someone who had also written some letters which I kept, told me to go and teach others faithfully the things I heard, I would expect they did not mean ONLY the things in those letters. So even though my wife gives me a shopping a list which includes eggs, I would expect if she started a sentence "don't forget to" that what she is about to say is either not clearly on the list or not there at all.

As we all believe things not based on the Bible alone, it also stands to reason that there was (for me is) a body of teachings carried forward by the faithful which supports (not contradicts) Scripture of course, but also expounds on points made there as well as present truths not explicitly covered or even mentioned at all there.

But these additions are generally unwise. To codify writings that are your own additions is seriously unwise. As it is written, "The fear of Adonai is the beginning of wisdom." I've found them in the psalms, prophets, and also the Law. The writings after Matthew Luke and John Are fairly suspect apart from a few chapters in James, and of course, The first book of Peter. The very warning in Revelations smacks of a double bluff. The ones who made the additions want no-one to dare question it. I have questioned and weighed it up, and some of it is wanting. I challenge you to debate this with me.

 

[IchoozJC]

But these additions are generally unwise. To codify writings that are your own additions is seriously unwise. As it is written, "The fear of Adonai is the beginning of wisdom." I've found them in the psalms, prophets, and also the Law. The writings after Matthew Luke and John Are fairly suspect apart from a few chapters in James, and of course, The first book of Peter. The very warning in Revelations smacks of a double bluff. The ones who made the additions want no-one to dare question it. I have questioned and weighed it up, and some of it is wanting. I challenge you to debate this with me.

Are you another truthseeker who believes the apostle Paul was a false apostle?

 

[Bongoon]

Hello, I don't believe the writings attributed to Shaul are the writings of the same man, nor do i hold that most of them are reliable scripturally. But not only Paul(Shaul) but 'John' too. The schism that John (the book) and 'John 1,2+3' have caused in the faith, is intolerable.