What does the “Bible alone” mean?

[Markesmith]

What does the “Bible alone” mean?

Really the Bible alone? Even one verse?

Or the Bible plus scripture scholars?

Or the Bible plus a consensus of believers?

Or the Bible plus Tradition? (Tradition defined as doctrine that is handed down, not mere human tradition)

Or the Bible plus the teaching of the apostles?

I would like to know what you think it means not Wikipedia!

[missmuffet]

Bible means "book". It is the Holy Word of God.

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work

[Justin Adams]

14 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work

He was referring to the LXX and other 'scriptures' of his age and understanding. He was NOT talking about the reformed canon.

To understand the context you have to go back into the understanding of Second Temple Jewish and Greek literature.

I has very little to do with our modern and sometimes edited or doctored texts.

[missmuffet]

11 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

He was referring to the LXX and other 'scriptures' of his age and understanding. He was NOT talking about the reformed canon.

To understand the context you have to go back into the understanding of Second Temple Jewish and Greek literature.

I has very little to do with our modern and sometimes edited or doctored texts.

That is too complicated for me. Doctrine is meant to be simple. 

[Justin Adams]

1 minute ago, missmuffet said:

That is too complicated for me. Doctrine is meant to be simple. 

The LXX, or Septuagint was the apostles' bible that they mostly used along with some targums and hebrew texts plus books we are either disallowed or do not have available. That is WHERE the apostles compiled their doctrines from.

But little of the original doctrines survive today due to our plethora of church institutions and seminaries.

[Knotical]

Bible alone means to use the Bible as the core source for all doctrine and theology.  It is possible to employ confessions, catechisms, and creeds, but if there is any portion of those that is not supported by, or is in contradiction of, the bible it must be dismissed and/or corrected to support biblical Truth.

[Deadworm]

Remember 2 important facts:

(1) There is no reference to the status of precisely our 66 canonical books as Scripture prior to the Reformation.

(2) Paul quotes the apocryphal Apocalypse of Elijah as Scripture (1 Cor 2:9) and Jude treats both 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (both noncanonical books) as Scripture.

[David1701]

56 minutes ago, Deadworm said:

Remember 2 important facts:

(1) There is no reference to the status of precisely our 66 canonical books as Scripture prior to the Reformation.

 

See the link below, for a good summary of the reasons for the OT and NT canons being as they are (66 books).

https://answersingenesis.org/the-word-of-god/why-66-books/

Quote

(2) Paul quotes the apocryphal Apocalypse of Elijah as Scripture (1 Cor 2:9) and Jude treats both 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (both noncanonical books) as Scripture.

Many godly scholars believe that Paul was paraphrasing Is. 64:4 (in 1 Cor. 2:9), not quoting the so-called "Apocalypse of Elijah".  At any rate, it is impossible to prove that he quoted the A of E, especially since it is often dated to well after Paul had died!

The only two denominations that accept the Book of Enoch as inspired are the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church; since the body of Christ are the custodians of the canon of Scripture, this is not exactly a ringing endorsement.

The Assumption of Moses is known from an incomplete, 6th C. Latin manuscript.  This does not conform to God's promise to preserve his word.

[Markesmith]

What about tradition? 
 

2 Thessalonians 2:15

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

[Deadworm]

6 hours ago, David1701 said:

See the link below, for a good summary of the reasons for the OT and NT canons being as they are (66 books).

David: "You are ducking my point: no source prior to the Reformation identifies our 66 books as the biblical canon."

David: "Many godly scholars believe that Paul was paraphrasing Is. 64:4 (in 1 Cor. 2:9), not quoting the so-called "Apocalypse of Elijah". 

That ploy is a desperate attempt to identify the quote from the closest OT parallel.  But no text of Isaiah 66:4 matches the wording of Paul's citation.  Indeed, Origin actually has a copy of the Apocalypse before him and he can identify it as the source of Paul's quotation of Scripture.

At any rate, it is impossible to prove that he quoted the A of E, especially since it is often dated to well after Paul had died!

You can provide no evidence for such a post-Pauline dating.  As usual, you are grasping at straws.

David: "The only two denominations that accept the Book of Enoch as inspired are the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church; since the body of Christ are the custodians of the canon of Scripture, this is not exactly a ringing endorsement.

As usual, you duck the obvious allusions to both 1 Enoch and the Apocalypse of Moses in Jude, Jesus' own brother.