reply to post by micmerci
Many thanks to you and wildtimes and the others who have made this thread so important and enjoyable. I know that I'm really learning and I can't
say enough for the kindness of my teachers here.
There are no scripture verses that directly say that we can only use scripture. Just as there are no verses that specifically say infants were
baptized or that they absolutely did not baptize infants, or that it is permissible to pray to Mary or that the scripture reference concerning Mary
is, in fact even a prayer.
This is very important, to my way of thinking. Some Protestants (Thanks, NOTurTypical, for telling me it's not
"all.") believe that something must be shown in the Bible to be true. If you are right, and I suspect you are, that there are no verses supporting
that idea, then the people who believe in it are getting their authority from some place other than the Bible. (Does that make sense?)
The idea of the other Protestants and Catholics seems to be established; there is some authority outside the Bible that has the same authority as the
Bible. That authority might be called "Tradition," or individual revelation, or thoughtful study, or I don't know what else, but it must be there.
(Unless my thinking is fouled up.)
Thanks for the verses. A few thoughts?
I agree completely on the issue of private interpretation, at least as it affects anyone else. I'm taking the extreme case of someone who says
"That Valley of the Shadow of Death verse has always meant something special to me since I found my favorite cow in the valley over by the Baker
place." That kind of private interpretation doesn't bother me. But I agree. A verse can't be interpreted with authority by a private individual.
Doesn't that mean that it's proper interpretation has to come from outside an individual? Probably a group?
The verse "All Scripture is given by God . . . ?" I agree completely again. It seems that there is an odd group of people who believe it is just
made-up, some kind of fiction, but I'm not among them. If it's in the Bible, it was given by God. My thought is that there may very well have been
another way God gave his Word. He can't contradict Himself so this "other way" would have to complement, add on to, or help explain, the written
Word. The "other way" may have been (and I believe it to have been) "Tradition."
The third verse is especially interesting, the "Do not think of men . . ." one. It didn't ring any bells (shame on me) so I looked it up: (Chapter
4, Verses 1-7)
This, then, is how you ought to regard us: as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed. 2 Now it is
required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do
not even judge myself. 4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before
the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that
time each will receive their praise from God.
6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the
saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other. 7 For who
makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did
not? (Emphasis added)
Subject to correction, I believe that they could not possibly have been talking about the Bible here, there wasn't any. Everything the early
Christians had, they had from word of mouth, or "Tradition."
I personally believe that if the tradition is too murky, it is better to avoid it than to participate in it. That's just me.
again. If there is no clear evidence or teaching on the subject it becomes optional, and possibly dangerous.