WHo was the first person to come up with the "Bible Only" idea?

[gtsecc]

Does anyone know the history of this idea?

[soldout]

Does anyone know the history of this idea?

God did, but I will leave it to others to quote:

Acts 17:11-12
11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV


I need no monks, popes or prelates to speak in the place of God.

[Ainesis]

Can you define what you mean by the "Bible Only" idea?

[gtsecc]

Acts 17:11-12
11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV
Is that refering to the Bible or to the Law and the Prophets?

[gtsecc]

Can you define what you mean by the "Bible Only" idea?
Sure.
Some Christians refer to the Bible only.
Some refer to the Bible and other teachings.

[Ainesis]

I don't see why other teachings are a problem, as long as they are consistent with Scripture. Are these other teachings yto which you refer given the same weight and stature of the Bible? Is Bible Only the same thing a Sola Scriptura?

[Asaph]

Sure.
Some Christians refer to the Bible only.
Some refer to the Bible and other teachings.

You're right. Especialy Mormans. They are big on tradition and extra-biblical writings.

So you agree with all that do you?

Asaph

[gtsecc]

You're right. Especialy Mormans. They are big on tradition and extra-biblical writings.

So you agree with all that do you?

Asaph
That is a good point.
However, I can easily distinguish between non-biblical writers such as Ireneus and Joseph Smith.

But, as far as I can tell, the Bible Only idea is not a Christian idea from the begining. It can't be an idea until the Bible exists, which it didn't for a few hundred years. Now, maybe the authority changed once it came into existance. Is that what you are saying?


Isn't there clearly a time when Christ has assended and the New Testament hasn't even been written, so the 12 disciples have the authority? Then they passed the authority down by the laying on of hands. This is the only source of authority until the Bible is formalized, correct?

[Ainesis]

Isn't there clearly a time when Christ has assended and the New Testament hasn't even been written, so the 12 disciples have the authority? Then they passed the authority down by the laying on of hands. This is the only source of authority until the Bible is formalized, correct?

This was not directed to me, but I would have to say No. I see no evidence of apostolic succession, that is ordained by God anyway. I also believe that the words of God, which would later be written in Scripture, were still passed on in verbal form prior to being written.

[lismore]

Does anyone know the history of this idea?

Matthew 4:4 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Matthew 4:4)
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'


It was the doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ.


No man is the mouthpiece of God.

Lismore:)

[New_Wineskin]

Does anyone know the history of this idea?

Well , it didn't exist before the Scriptures were written . It didn't exist before Christ . It didn't exist as the Church began . It didn't exist as the Orthodix/Catholic doctrines became predominant . As far as I know it began with Luther . And , he didn't really believe it because he became the authority for his group as well as his doctrines thus reforming his own three-legged stool . And , most groups after him did the same thing . The Lord is the only authority as far as I am concerned . Paul wrote much against most of variations of the idea .

[lismore]

Isn't there clearly a time when Christ has assended and the New Testament hasn't even been written, so the 12 disciples have the authority? Then they passed the authority down by the laying on of hands. This is the only source of authority until the Bible is formalized, correct?

The problem with that view is that, of the 12 apostles it was the thirteenth that contributed most to scripture, to the growth of the church and who corrected the infallible first pope 'Peter'.
Galatians 2:11 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Galatians 2:11)
[ Paul Opposes Peter ] When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
2 Corinthians 12:11 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=2 Corinthians 12:11) I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the "super-apostles," even though I am nothing.
Galatians 1:12 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Galatians 1:12) I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.


So the number one apostle received nothing from man but revelation from Christ. If you believe there was a first pope it was more likely to be Paul than Peter.

Read the word, let the spirit speak to you and lead you into all truth:)

[lismore]

Well , it didn't exist before the Scriptures were written . .

Yes it did.

The truth is that it is only the words of God that matter, man's words dont mean toffee.

Dont forget it all started with God's word: Genesis 1:3 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Genesis 1:3)
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Genesis 15:4 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Genesis 15:4)
Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir."

Matthew 24:35 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Matthew 24:35)
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

The words of God cannot pass away. So therefore it is only the words of God that count.

2 Samuel 22:31 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=2 Samuel 22:31)
"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him.
Proverbs 30:5 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Proverbs 30:5)
"Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
2 Timothy 3:16 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=2 Timothy 3:16)
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,


The reason many people reject the word of God without man's trash added is that while the scriptures and hearing from God was banned by the Dark Ages Churches people forgot the truth and mixed it with pagan ceremonies and philosophies. However when Luther, Tyndale and others brought the scriptures back into the public eye, the perfect plumb line of the word shows up all the detestable practices (Deuteronomy 32:16) of these groups. That is why they reject God's word in its pure form.

:)

[Asaph]

Yes it did.

The truth is that it is only the words of God that matter, man's words dont mean toffee.

Dont forget it all started with God's word: Genesis 1:3 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Genesis 1:3)
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Genesis 15:4 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Genesis 15:4)
Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir."

Matthew 24:35 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Matthew 24:35)
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

The words of God cannot pass away. So therefore it is only the words of God that count.

2 Samuel 22:31 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=2 Samuel 22:31)
"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him.
Proverbs 30:5 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Proverbs 30:5)
"Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
2 Timothy 3:16 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=2 Timothy 3:16)
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,


The reason many people reject the word of God without man's trash added is that while the scriptures and hearing from God was banned by the Dark Ages Churches people forgot the truth and mixed it with pagan ceremonies and philosophies. However when Luther, Tyndale and others brought the scriptures back into the public eye, the perfect plumb line of the word shows up all the detestable practices (Deuteronomy 32:16) of these groups. That is why they reject God's word in its pure form.

:)

It appears to me that there are certain organizations who's only intent in using the bible at all is to obfuscate the Truth instead of illuminating it.

I do know this, it is a trait universal to all cults that I have ever studied about. (I used to do a lot of studying geared toward apologetics).

Asaph

[PapaLandShark]

I just read an interesting article on the Nicene church that touches upon this. Let me dig about in my apologetics folder.

[PapaLandShark]

Ah..here we go.

http://www.aomin.org/JRWOpening.html

Interesting stuff.

[twistedsketch]

Isn't there clearly a time when Christ has assended and the New Testament hasn't even been written, so the 12 disciples have the authority? Then they passed the authority down by the laying on of hands. This is the only source of authority until the Bible is formalized, correct?
The problem with that is you're relying on fallible people. Even Peter failed, as Lismore pointed out. And by this failure, he taught the wrong thing.

Paul gives Timothy guidelines for who to lay hands onto in 1 Timothy 3. Nowhere do we see that laying hands makes a man perfect or even perfectly reliable. Timothy had to be careful with who he laid hands on. Eventually, there was a breakdown of integrity in church leadership, exemplified by the medieval popes. Were hands laid on them? Yes sir. Were they reliable, meeting the standards that Paul laid out for Timothy? I dare say not.

With the Scriptures canonized, we have what we need clearly laid out for us so we are not eating out of one man's hand. Following the model of the Bereans in Acts would not be less noble than it was for them, and they were using the only Scripture they had at the time. It was from that Scripture that the Apostles taught that Jesus was the Messiah anyway.

I agree with Asaph, opening yourself up to extrabiblical teachings is opening a way in for the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other such teachings.

[lismore]

Ah..here we go.

http://www.aomin.org/JRWOpening.html

Interesting stuff.

Very Interesting, thanks:wave:

Heres the conclusion in case you dont have time to read it all:)
In Conclusion

What, then, must we conclude on the basis of the facts of history? First, that there are certain doctrines and dogmas that set Roman Catholicism apart from all other communions. That these doctrines are, allegedly, based upon apostolic tradition. Furthermore, we assert that without these doctrines, you do not have Roman Catholicism. We have asked the question, "Did the Church which produced the Nicene Council exhibit these fundamental hallmarks of Roman Catholicism?" The answer provided by the facts themselves is quite simply, "no." Hence, we propose to the reader that the Church of Nicæa was not the Church of Rome, and that the changes that have taken place in the nearly 1700 years since then are not a matter of natural progression and "evolution," but are, instead, degenerations and perversions of the Church that so clearly defended the deity of Christ so long ago.

[Reformationist]

That is a good point.
However, I can easily distinguish between non-biblical writers such as Ireneus and Joseph Smith.

Great. Now we need someone with the authority to tell us who is reliable. Are you to fill that role for us?

But, as far as I can tell, the Bible Only idea is not a Christian idea from the begining. It can't be an idea until the Bible exists, which it didn't for a few hundred years. Now, maybe the authority changed once it came into existance. Is that what you are saying?


Isn't there clearly a time when Christ has assended and the New Testament hasn't even been written, so the 12 disciples have the authority? Then they passed the authority down by the laying on of hands. This is the only source of authority until the Bible is formalized, correct?

Two things. First, there is a difference between the authority granted to the Church and the infallibility of Scripture. There is only one infallible authority and that is God. Even the Apostles did not speak on their own authority, and their teachings were infallible. However, the infallibility of their teachings was ordered upon the infallibility of divine revelation, not personal possession. Second, sola Scriptura, if that is what you mean by "Bible only," is not the teaching that the Bible is the only authority given to man. It is the teaching that Scripture is the ultimate or final authority on matters of faith. In our society God has established numerous forms of authority to which we are bound from our birth, i.e., our parents, teachers, employers, learned men of the church, and the law of man to name a few. The duty of every Christian is to obey the authorities God has placed over them and search the Scriptures to ensure that these authorities are operating within the bounds of God's Holy and infallible Law.

God bless

[BBAS 64]

Well , it didn't exist before the Scriptures were written . It didn't exist before Christ . It didn't exist as the Church began . It didn't exist as the Orthodix/Catholic doctrines became predominant . As far as I know it began with Luther . And , he didn't really believe it because he became the authority for his group as well as his doctrines thus reforming his own three-legged stool . And , most groups after him did the same thing . The Lord is the only authority as far as I am concerned . Paul wrote much against most of variations of the idea .

Good Day, New Wineskin

Do you have a source from Luther?

Theodoret
Bishop of Cyrus and theologian, born at Antioch in Syria about 393


"I shall yield to scripture alone." - Theodoret (Dialogues, 1)

"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)


Peace to u,

Bill

[New_Wineskin]

Yes it did.

It couldn't possibly have existed before the Scriptures were written because the Scriptures are *by definition* WRITINGS . Paul even declared that the Law came into existance 400 years after Abraham .

[New_Wineskin]

Good Day, New Wineskin

Do you have a source from Luther?

Theodoret
Bishop of Cyrus and theologian, born at Antioch in Syria about 393


"I shall yield to scripture alone." - Theodoret (Dialogues, 1)

"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)


Peace to u,

Bill

Ok . That might be good if you are quoting that in context and if the groups leaders think that he was writing the same thing as what people today mean when they write that . I did write that , as far as I knew . If happened before Luther , I would think that the Orthodox/Catholic heirarchies would have put an end to dissenters who stated such or they weren't really stating it in the way that it is stated today . One could easily say the exact same thing but mean completely different things . I see it happen in forums and chatrooms all of the time .

[lismore]

It couldn't possibly have existed before the Scriptures were written because the Scriptures are *by definition* WRITINGS . Paul even declared that the Law came into existance 400 years after Abraham .

They are not by definition writings. They are a record of God's spoken word.

Your definition of scriptures as 'writings' is not 'scriptural'. Theo-logos= God's word e.g let there be light. God was not mute before people wrote stuff down.

Now when the bible says all scriptures are God breathed you're saying this means all writings are God breathed? The Koran is a writing, so is the book of mormon;) . No the bible says all of God's word is God breathed and is useful etc. Before whoever wrote them down say the first gospels were written in 85AD. In the 55 years between Jesus spoke and it was written down this was still God's word. Indeed at the moment Jesus spoke it was God's word, whether it was written down at that time or not.

:scratch:

[New_Wineskin]

They are not by definition writings. They are a record of God's spoken word.


You didn't even bother looking at what words are translated as "Scriptures" ( even mistranslated ) . Well , handed-down manmade doctrines that are not researched do become gods . I won't have a god made from mashed wood and adorned with ink . The Scriptures themselves declare that the Lord becomes upset over such things .

[BBAS 64]

Ok . That might be good if you are quoting that in context and if the groups leaders think that he was writing the same thing as what people today mean when they write that . I did write that , as far as I knew . If happened before Luther , I would think that the Orthodox/Catholic heirarchies would have put an end to dissenters who stated such or they weren't really stating it in the way that it is stated today . One could easily say the exact same thing but mean completely different things . I see it happen in forums and chatrooms all of the time .

Good Day, New Wineskin


You have the sources, I am still waiting on that Luther source.

Here is a great question:

"For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?" - Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)

It is clear to see in Theodoret with the first dialogue I quoted , he will always go to Scripture to up hold a truth againt an error or the whims of man. Not to some other source.


We shall therefore endeavor to persuade Arius to acknowledge the substance of the Holy Trinity, and we shall adduce proofs of this position from Holy Scripture." (Dialogues, 2)

Which is quite different then the current pattern of Rome... read my Sig line..

Peace to u,

Bill

[lismore]

You didn't even bother looking at what words are translated as "Scriptures" ( even mistranslated ) . Well , handed-down manmade doctrines that are not researched do become gods . I won't have a god made from mashed wood and adorned with ink . The Scriptures themselves declare that the Lord becomes upset over such things .

Hi there:wave:

Im Sorry I cant get a handle on what you're trying to debate about.

Only God's word is infallible. 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God' is a mistranslation. 'Scripture' should read God's word, because scripture means general writing. The original says 'Theo-logos' i.e God's Word.

What God says is not an idol, but its infallible because God said it and he is infallible.

:scratch:

[Rising_Suns]

Which is quite different then the current pattern of Rome... read my Sig line..

Peace to u,

Bill

Bill,
Just so you are aware, there is a context to the pope's statement in your signature. If you would like to know more information you're welcome to come to OBOB to ask.

It's also important to always be mindfull of how your Bible came into existence.

Blessings,

-Davide

[Reformationist]

It's also important to always be mindfull of how your Bible came into existence.

And how was that Dave, perhaps by the providence of God? :scratch: :scratch:

[Rising_Suns]

And how was that Dave, perhaps by the providence of God? :scratch: :scratch:

Yes, by the providence of God, through men. That is the short answer, but it is no excuse not to learn more. The history of Scripture is rich and deep; it's an amazing field of study.

Blessings,

-Davide

[Reformationist]

Yes, by the providence of God, through men.

I absolutely agree. It doesn't explain why you'd tell Bill that it's important to be mindful of how the Bible came into existence. Were you just making a generalized statement that it's a good idea to keep in mind that God is responsible for the establishment of His holy Word? :scratch:

That is the short answer, but it is no excuse not to learn more. The history of Scripture is rich and deep; it's an amazing field of study.

Blessings,

-Davide

I completely agree with this as well. Of course, church history doesn't necessitate accurate teaching, as you well know.

God bless

[Rising_Suns]

Of course, church history doesn't necessitate accurate teaching, as you well know.

God bless

This is not to say that one should ignore the history of Scripture. To be aware of the context in which Scripture came into existence will necessitate a more accurate interpretation of it, and of the nature of its authority, which is why I brought this up in regards to Bill's comments.

I'm just going to leave it at that since I do not intend to debate you in this thread.

Blessings,

-Davide

[Reformationist]

This is not to say that one should ignore the history of Scripture. To be aware of the context in which Scripture came into existence will necessitate a more accurate interpretation of it, and of the nature of its authority, which is why I brought this up in regards to Bill's comments.

I'm in perfect agreement with employing those factors in interpretation.

I'm just going to leave it at that since I do not intend to debate you in this thread.

Okay. I wasn't aware we were debating but thanks for clarifying anyway.

God bless