Posted on 01/23/2010 4:09:32 PM PST by NYer
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 1 Corinthians 11:2
Most Protestant Christians believe that the Bible is the only source concerning faith. According to them, there is no need for Apostolic Tradition or an authoritative, teaching Church. All that they need is the Bible in order to learn about the faith and to live a Christian life. The "Bible Alone" teaching can be appealing in its simplicity, but it suffers from fundamental problems. A few are considered here.
First the Bible itself states that not everything important to the Christian faith is recorded in it. For example, not everything that Christ did is recorded in the inspired Books:
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. [John 21:25; RSV]
According to John 20:31, some things have been recorded in the Gospel in order to come to know Christ; however, John 21:25 suggests that there is still more to know about Him. At least for St. John the Apostle, there was more that he needed to teach which was not recorded in the Bible:
I had much to write you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face. [3 John 13-14]
Also St. Paul instructs Timothy on how to orally pass on the teachings of the faith:
...what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. [2 Tim. 2:2]
St. Paul even commands (2 Thess. 3:6) the Thessalonian Christians to follow the oral Traditions of the Apostles:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us (Apostles), either by word of mouth (oral) or by letter (Epistle). [2 Thess. 2:15]
These commands promoting Oral Tradition would be quite strange, if only the Bible were needed to pass on the entire Christian faith.
A second problem with the "Bible Alone" teaching is canonicity - i.e. which Books belong in the Bible? It must be remembered that the Books of the Bible were written individually along with other religious books. Centuries later the Church compiled together the inspired Books under one cover to form the "Bible." A big question in the early Church was which books are the inspired written Word of God. (Inspired=written by men but authored by God; See Catechism of the Catholic Church 106.)
Scripture did not come with an "inspired" Table of Contents. Nowhere in the sacred texts are all the Books listed. There are some Books cited in the sacred writings but these lists are vague and incomplete (Acts 28:23; 2 Peter 3:16). There are also references to books not found in the Bible, such as St. Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16). St. Paul even encourages the Colossians to read this epistle, but still it is not in the Bible. Jesus in the Gospel never attempts to list the "official" Books of the Old Testament (OT). This issue was hotly debated in His day. Today Protestant and Catholic Christians disagree over which Books belong in the OT. Catholics follow the list in the Septuagint (2nd century B.C. Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture) while Protestants follow the list used by the Pharisees. A list from Jesus could have eliminated this problem, but no such list is found in the Gospel. As a result the Bible needs a visible authority outside of itself to list the inspired sacred Books. This authority must be guided by the Holy Spirit since these Books are from the Holy Spirit.
Some Christians claim that the Table of Contents in their Bible lists the inspired Books. Even though found in modern Bibles, the Table of Contents is still not inspired. It is not the Word of God but words added later by human editors, much similar to footnotes. The Table of Contents is basically the opinion of the publishing editor. Others may claim that the closing verses in the Book of Revelation, specifically Rev. 22:18-19, cap off the Bible and define all the preceding Books as inspired by God. But do these verses apply to the whole Bible or only the Book of Revelation? Another flaw with this idea is that not all Bibles have the same number of Books. As alluded to above, Catholic and Protestant Bibles contain different numbers of OT Books, yet all these Bibles close with the same verses: Rev. 22:18ff. Both cannot be right. Finally the Book of Deuteronomy contains similar verses (4:2 & 12:32). Does this imply that the Books after Deuteronomy are not inspired by God? No.
A third problem with the "Bible Alone" teaching is proper understanding of critical Bible passages. Most Protestant Christians promote personal interpretation of the Bible, i.e. anyone can interpret these passages by himself. Unfortunately this leads to chaos. For example over Baptism, some Protestants accept the validity of infant Baptism, while others do not. Some believe in the necessity of Baptism for salvation, citing Mark 16:16, while others disagree by citing John 3:16. They all claim to be Bible-based, but still they disagree over fundamental issues regarding salvation. Sadly the "Yellow Pages" phone directory is a witness to the many "Bible-Based" churches who disagree with each other over key issues of the Christian faith. Personal interpretation of the Bible naturally leads to a mire of human doctrines as a result of differing personal opinions.
The Bible was not written as a catechism. It is a collection of many different styles of writing - poetry, history, parables, letters, songs, etc. - requiring different ways of understanding. Sometimes Jesus in the Gospel purposely taught in figurative language and parables, which makes literal interpretation impossible. Even St. Peter admits that St. Paul's Epistles can be difficult to understand:
...Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. [2 Peter 3:15-16]
Finally the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:30ff needed St. Philip to explain the Book of Isaiah. Obviously not everyone can understand the meaning of Scripture by simply reading it. More is required. These difficulties in the Bible demand an independent visible teaching authority that is guided by the Holy Spirit.
Even the Bible points to the importance of the Church for teaching the Truth. According to St. Peter in the Bible:
First of all you must understand this, that no prophesy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. [2 Peter 1:20-21]
At least prophecies in the Bible are not a matter of personal interpretation. These prophesies must be properly interpreted by "men moved by the Holy Spirit" since the Holy Spirit is the Author. These "men" are the Bishops of the Church - the successors to the Apostles (Acts 20:28-32). Finally the Bible does not call itself the bulwark of the truth; however, St. Paul does make reference to the Church in those terms:
...the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. [1 Tim. 3:15]
According to the Bible, the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
All Christians, including Catholics, should read the Bible in order to grow more in the faith; however, we still need the Church. The Church is needed to accurately pass on Apostolic Tradition (Romans 10:17), define the canon of the Bible (i.e. list the inspired Books), safeguard the accurate transmission (e.g. translations) of the Bible and interpret key passages, all with guidance from the Holy Spirit according to God's Will. The Church is needed for other reasons too. It must be understood that the Church is not merely men making arbitrary decisions but men executing authority from God guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church may at times be tested by scandals or scarred by the sins of men. We may sometimes disagree with the policies of the Church, but she is still the instrument of the Holy Spirit. This visible Church is the one built by Jesus Christ on St. Peter, the rock (Matt. 16:18-19; John 1:24). This is the Catholic Church.
Well, thank you very much. It only confirmed what we already knew, namely that so many sola scriptura Protestant are closet Gnostics.
As for the heart being the "chamber of the soul," (which is on the same level as demons causing illness), I think I better leave that one alone for tonight...
Praise God.
I’ve always felt that Chuck Smith did and does a LOT OF THINGS, quite right.
He runs, imho, a bit of a tight ship . . . coming out of the Jesus Movement, that’s probably been, on balance, a very good thing.
I hope Holy Spirit is often in evidence in the small group meetings.
INDEED.
Naw.
I think even my kisses on the forehead or neck might be too slobbery for him.
Sounds great.
You have links for such?
How about just posting the content here in this thread?
well, a knowledge of the language they are reading it in would help, plus a reason to trust its translators (unless you know the original language)
I’ve never seen anyone in our groups, small or the main assembly, speak in tongues.
Nor have I ever done that, nor has anyone down here who I know.
When I lived in North Idaho I went to two churches: Hayden Friends; and the C’dA Christian Center (an Abbott Loop church) where I knew many people who spoke in tongues.
How’s everything goin’, Quix?
See ya’,
Ed
Thanks for a learned exposition that I learned something from.
on the same level as demons causing illness
###
Christ made that clear a number of times with folks brought to Him for healing and he straight away cast the demon out of the individual . . . and they were instantly healed of their sickness.
Doesn’t say that 100% of all illness is caused DIRECTLY by demonic activity.
However, it is only satan & crew who come to steal, kill and destroy.
Sickness doesn’t per se come from God’s angels.
Certainly cast into a sin polluted world contributes.
Interesting.
Did you ever have any occasion around C D’Lane sp? to touch base with John and Paula Sandford near there?
I think they do a great work for God in their counseling and writing.
Elijah House I think is the name of their place. I gather their Son is slowly taking over or some such.
All one has to do is read Scripture in a fashion so as to understand its meaning as it is provided, rather than attempting to read our personal thinking into its interpretation and the classification of heart and mind and separate sections of the soul becomes readily apparent.
Likewise the perception of the human spirit via faith is also readily reported in Scripture by multiple witnesses of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus.
This isn’t heretical, rather it is doctrinal, learned from faithful study of Scripture through faith in Christ in fellowship with Him, remaining humble to His work in us.
The comments to others were made in rejoiceful heart to raise up others to Him, not to lower Christ to us. Previously in these threads, there had been debate regarding discernment of belief and knowledge, which led me to study the various terms used in Scripture regarding the two. So far I’ve found another some 20 terms describing those distinctions, yet it becomes obvious that faith preceeds a truthful knowledge in all of them.
All of this information has been gleaned independent of any reference to Gnosticism, which is heretical for it fails to attribute all things to Christ.
Oh, . . . doing what I can to grow in The Lord.
Is there a choice?
Thankfully, not! He alone is the source of Life and Eternal Life.
Thanks for asking.
God’s best to you and yours. Hope you’re warm. You on the coast or inner desert of Oregon?
I guess that’s one of my disappointments with Chuck Smith’s organization. Seems like there’s such tight control that even Holy Spirit tends to bow out of overt manifestations. I know they aren’t allowed in the general congregation meetings and that’s somewhat tolerable though I think largely wrong.
But if it’s not happening in the small group settings . . . that’s quite sad.
At least Scripture is well taught, imho.
I visited the local Calvary Chapel . . . felt like I’d have to attend a very long time to be accepted as human or acceptable or something. That felt sad.
The formalities were fine enough . . . just felt like a pretty closed group feeling.
INDEED.
I remain convinced that God has been well able to and has done the business of protecting His Word in most earnest translations sufficiently for individuals to establish and maintain a RELATIONSHIP with Him in which Holy Spirit can lead into further TRUTH IN GOD.
Perhaps a summary of your notes would be wonderful enough.
Yes, although some of these doctrines are only discernible by returning to the original languages and closely studying the word usage.
Its amazing sometimes how some words are translated in different versions. I ran across where DUNAMIS (Greek for power), was translated as “Virtue” in the KJV, no less, yet was translated as “Power” in most others.
The study of EPIGINOSKO is insightful, because it links reason to a process in the soul, a process in the human spirit, and a process in the mind, and reveals how our decisions made from our selves, are related back to either truthful foundations or insufficient thinking.
I’ll try to post them later. They have quite a few subscripts and superscripts, with Greek and Hebrew language notations, which aren’t as easy to transcribe here.
Upon reading #1257 & #1258 I have deduced you have come up with another option..
"Don't tease the issue, get a bigger hammar"...
Gnosticism (along with Judaism) was the first heresy declared by the Church. A bit of a triumph, really, to resurrect a 2000 year old heresy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.